Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Teacher Vacancies

Michael Clapham: What assessment he has made of the number of teacher vacancies.

Charles Clarke: National statistics published by my Department on 29 April show that, between 2002 and 2003, the number of full-time teacher vacancies in maintained schools in England fell by 1,140, or 25 per cent. The national teacher vacancy rate is now below 1 per cent. At regional level, the number of vacancies has fallen in eight out of the nine Government office regions, including a 35 per cent. drop in Yorkshire and Humberside.

Michael Clapham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am rather surprised by the statistic, because I spoke recently with Barnsley local education authority and I was told that we have fewer vacancies in Barnsley than there have been for a good number of years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that indicates that things are beginning to change and that teachers are being attracted to areas that are regenerating their economies and renewing their social structures, and that at the same time we are retaining teachers with experience, which is beginning to show through in areas such as Barnsley?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The figures confirm the experience of his colleagues in Barnsley and what he is describing, in that the national teacher vacancy rate is now 0.9 per cent. That indicates how well our policies are succeeding in delivering better teachers, better classrooms and better results.

Richard Ottaway: Is the Secretary of State aware that the teacher redundancy crisis at Edenham high school in Croydon is only the tip of the iceberg? Schools such as Woodcote high, Coloma girls and, as reported in today's Croydon Guardian, another school, Coulsdon high school, are on a four-and-a-half-day week. The problem is that contrary to what the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, the education budget in Croydon is inadequate. To make it worse, the local Labour authority has siphoned off £1.7 million for non-educational purposes.
	The Government blame the council and the council blames the Government. Six years ago, the Prime Minister said that his top priorities were "Education, education, education." Today, we see only shambles, chaos and children caught in the crossfire.

Charles Clarke: I am very well aware of the position both in the schools to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and in Croydon generally. Croydon is one of those authorities that has not passported all its money to education, as it should have done. We have made it clear to the local education authority that it should do that. Croydon is also one of those authorities that is working with schools to try to resolve this situation in an effective way. My Department is also working with LEAs, such as Croydon, specifically discussing with them the best way to proceed. I would say to head teachers that they should work closely with the LEA to resolve the situation, rather than taking the sort of steps that were taken yesterday.

Geraint Davies: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable to parents and to children for pupils to be sent home early from schools? Does he agree that it is time to re-examine regional distributions? Does he agree also that it is time to examine whether funding should be made directly from his Department to schools? Further, will he agree to meet me to discuss with representatives from Croydon a strategy for this year to next year to ensure that there is sufficient cash for our children's education?

Charles Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful question. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has met colleagues from Croydon, and will continue to do so. [Interruption.] I meant that seriously—it was a helpful question. It is important that we have a proper debate about the funding issues in schools. It is important also that Members represent their constituents' interests in the way that both the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and my hon. Friend have sought to do. It was not an ironic remark.
	I will not inflate the situation by using strong language about what has gone on in the schools, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that schools should not be closing for even part of the day in the current circumstances while the LEA, the Department and schools are working together to resolve these problems in an effective manner.

Keith Simpson: May I, too, ask the Secretary of State a helpful question? What sort of message does he think it is sending to potential teachers that there may be vacancies in many areas but there will be 3,000 redundancies throughout the country, and 92 in his and my education authority? Has he yet seen the letter from Dr. Bryan Slater, the chief education officer for Norfolk county council, to his Department, which line by line refutes the arguments advanced by the Department that in some way Norfolk has not passed on all the funds to schools? In those areas where funds have not as yet been passed on, the irony is that that has not happened because of the Department's guidelines. Surely the buck stops with the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, not with schools and not with LEAs.

Charles Clarke: I have two things to say in response. First, the survey reported this morning in the newspaper to which the hon. Gentleman referred is, as the newspaper itself acknowledged, a self-selecting partial survey in which only one in 17 of those surveyed responded. It bears no relation—I emphasise this—to information that we have had from local education authorities about the situation.
	Secondly, on the Norfolk case, the document that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which referred to 92 potential redundancies, is a paper that the authority sent in response to recent ring-rounds and which was copied to trade unions and others, and no doubt it is in the public arena. As the LEA said, and I have had confirmation of it this morning, it represents all possible cases. The cause is a mix of budget problems and falling rolls. However, there are as many vacancies as posts at risk, so the LEA is working to re-deploy as many as possible. In addition, the 92 potential redundancies were from before the devolved formula capital announcement that I made a week or so ago, so the actual number, according to the LEA, will be nothing like as big as the figure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. That story is repeated throughout the country. LEAs are working, like Conservative Norfolk county council—I give it credit—with schools, teachers and my Department to ensure that the problems are minimised. The kind of partial survey published in The Times this morning, based on inaccurate and outdated information, does nothing to assist the situation in any way.

Barry Sheerman: As my right hon. Friend rolls out his specialist schools policy, will he be extremely careful to examine the impact that that will have on teacher shortages in particular subjects, and will he study carefully the Select Committee's report, "Secondary Education: Diversity of Provision", which was published this morning? It might give him some useful guidance in that area.

Charles Clarke: I will study my hon. Friend's Committee's report extremely carefully. I have seen the news reports of its publication, but as I am sure he will understand, I have not yet had a chance to study the report itself. I will take account of what it recommends. The overall teacher vacancy position that I described shows the kind of measures that we can take to improve the quality of education in all types of schools throughout the country.

Damian Green: The Secretary of State just sought to rubbish the survey in The Times this morning, which suggested that there will be 3,000 teacher redundancies as a result of the Government's funding crisis in schools. If he thinks that that is the wrong figure, how many teachers' jobs does he think are at risk because of the funding crisis?

Charles Clarke: We believe that the overall level of redundancies—there are falling rolls in some parts of the country—will be of the same order as in past years. That is the precise question that we are discussing with LEAs, as I described in response to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). We are not in a position to make an estimate at this stage, but I can say that both the particular figures cited—the 92 in Norfolk and the 3,000 in the self-selecting survey published in The Times today—are massive exaggerations.

Damian Green: The Secretary of State seems to be admitting that some teachers at least will be made redundant as a result of the funding crisis. He knows that the redundancy notices will have to go out by the end of this month. His Department underspent by £1 billion last year. Why does he not take some useful action and use some of that money to stop teachers being sacked? The crisis is real, and his response so far has been hopelessly inadequate.

Charles Clarke: We debated the matter at length last week. We expect a reduction of about 50,000 pupils in nursery and primary schools this year and over the next two years. That is spread unevenly across the country. LEAs are trying to manage the falling rolls as best they can, but it leads to difficult situations in particular schools. Let me cite another local authority to praise it. Yesterday, a special meeting of Northumberland county council agreed to give £1.5 million to the county's 213 schools in a bid to boost budgets. The funds are being recycled from a contingency fund. According to the council's press release, that will prevent 19 threatened redundancies in 14 schools, and allow other schools to boost their education budgets. Such action is being taken by LEAs throughout the country. I cite only one example. It indicates that we are working with LEAs to resolve the problem, and that is what we will do.

Higher Education Funding

Anne Campbell: What publicly funded scholarships and bursaries are available to assist students from low-income backgrounds to participate in higher education.

Margaret Hodge: A number of publicly funded bursaries already exist for students from low-income families. They include opportunity bursaries, learning allowances for student parents, and student awards from hardship funds. The Government also fund student bursaries for those training in public sector work—teaching, social work and a range of health professions. From 2004, new students will be able to apply for the new higher education grant of up to £1,000 each year.

Anne Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but I hope that she will agree that the current system is complicated for potential students. Will she consider a proposal to reintroduce state scholarships that are based on merit and means tested? Such scholarships could be both publicly and privately funded, and would help to achieve her objective of improving access for students from low-income backgrounds.

Margaret Hodge: I accept that we need to be better at getting proper information out to potential students about the funding that is available to support them during their university degrees. We have a system of what could be termed state scholarships in terms of the fee remission scheme and the introduction of the higher education grant. Going beyond that, we want institutions themselves to accept responsibility for ensuring that they have bursary schemes to support students from low-income families, rather than having further central prescription. However, I am always willing to consider new ideas from hon. Members.

James Clappison: Does the Minister agree that one does not raise the aspirations of one group of children by suppressing those of another? Is there not every likelihood that that is what the access regulator, or "Offtoff", will do? Here is a suggestion to the Minister: scrap "Offtoff", leave universities free to admit on merit and spend the savings on poor students, of whom there are all too many under this Government's policies.

Margaret Hodge: I find it very hard to understand how cutting student numbers can open access and increase opportunities, particularly for those from low-income families who wish to attend universities. I also find it very hard to understand how the Big Brother regulator that the Opposition undoubtedly want to introduce to tell universities which courses they can and cannot offer would improve access for students. It may well be that the hon. Gentleman does not like our proposal to introduce OFFA, the office of fair access, which will ensure fair access for students in all our universities, but I am not sure that I think much of the Opposition's idea of simply telling students to OFF off.

James Purnell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proportion of children from poor households going to university in this country is still far too low? Does she know of any other country in the world that does not have a target to increase participation? Can she tell me what proportion of households pay the full tuition fee at the moment?

Margaret Hodge: I completely concur with my hon. Friend that too few young people from low-income households are going to university. The thrust of all our policies is to ensure that the brightest and most talented young people, from whatever background, get the opportunity to go to university. I also concur that no developed nation that is aspiring to compete economically in the global economy is not increasing the number of people who are participating and going to university. Finally, he is right to draw to the attention of the House the fact that only four out of 10 young people currently pay the full contribution to the fee that we ask of students.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) is absolutely right; information is not getting through to students, as the Minister admits. That is because the way in which she answered the question was about as clear as mud. Why is she spending so much time and money setting up all these complicated schemes that no one understands, when the simple solution is so obvious? My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) announced our policy to great acclaim last week. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State knows that this is right. The way to encourage more young people from all backgrounds to come into higher education is to scrap university fees altogether. Why do not the Government simply abolish the tax on learning?

Margaret Hodge: I welcome the hon. Lady's guest appearance. I am delighted that the Conservatives have finally introduced a policy on higher education—one of their first—and I am sure that it will unravel very quickly. Underlying it is the clear message that if someone wants their child to go to university, they should not vote Conservative because under their policy there would not be a place for that child.

Kelvin Hopkins: It seems obvious that only a minority of students would benefit from a limited supply of scholarships and bursaries. If we want to widen participation in higher education, as we all do on this side of the House at least, we should reintroduce state grants for all students. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the only realistic way forward in the long term?

Margaret Hodge: I would make three points to my hon. Friend. First, four out of 10 young students do not have their fees remitted. Secondly, with the introduction of a higher education grant on top of a well-subsidised student loan, a third of the student cohort will receive £1,000 a year. Thirdly, by abolishing the payment of an up-front contribution towards the cost of fees, no student will have to contribute to the cost of their education during their time at university. Graduates who benefit personally from gaining a degree should contribute over their lifetime to the cost of that degree from their earnings. It is therefore graduates who pay, not students.

Criminal Records Bureau

Paul Burstow: If he will make a statement on Criminal Records Bureau checks for teachers.

David Miliband: The average turnaround time for Criminal Records Bureau checks on teachers is less than five weeks. Head teachers have discretion to allow teachers to start work before receiving their disclosure, provided that they have been checked against list 99 and all other relevant pre-employment checks have been carried out.

Paul Burstow: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure he will recall the chaos into which the CRB descended last year, when many thousands of teachers were awaiting checks, schools were in limbo, and children were left wondering whether there would be a teacher in their classroom. Will the Minister confirm that it would be wrong for the CRB substantially to increase its charges for disclosures well above the rate of inflation to make good the cost of its cock-ups? Would it not be wrong for teachers, local education authorities and children to have to pay more to make good the errors of the CRB?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the CRB is now processing 40,000 disclosures a week, and the backlog to which he referred is all but cleared. The full operation of the CRB is obviously a matter for the Home Secretary, and I understand that he has the various issues under review.

Bob Spink: If the backlog is all but cleared, why does Essex county council have 400 applications outstanding, 50 of which were made a year ago? That is spectacular incompetence, even by the Department's standards. When will Essex's outstanding applications be cleared?

David Miliband: The honest answer is that Essex is part of the "but" rather than the "all" in my earlier description of the CRB's activities. It is processing 40,000 applications a week, and I am sure that it will come to the Essex disclosures as soon as possible.

Connexions Partnerships

Valerie Davey: If he will make a statement on the publication of the first three Ofsted reports on Connexions partnerships.

Ivan Lewis: I am pleased to say that Ofsted has judged all three partnerships to be good. In each case, Ofsted found that the partnership enables young people to reach good levels of achievement; has a good overall quality of practice; has a good understanding of the communities that it serves; and has good leadership and management, together with committed staff.

Valerie Davey: I thank my hon. Friend. With that positive outcome and, I trust, a further good report from the west of England Connexions Partnership board, will he confirm that Connexions partnerships make a real difference to young people in their progression to their adult working lives?

Ivan Lewis: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for supporting the work of Connexions in her constituency. While I cannot disclose the results of the Ofsted report in her area, she will not be disappointed. To underline the progress that Connexions is now making, in a recent independent survey of more than 16,000 young people who have used the service, 91 per cent. said that they were satisfied or very satisfied; 90 per cent. agreed that Connexions had a lot to offer young people; 86 per cent. felt that it helped them to understand all the options available to them; and 68 per cent. said that it had helped them make life-changing decisions. Up and down the country, Connexions is beginning to make a real difference to the life chances of young people.

Charles Hendry: Those are fine words, but can the Minister confirm that the Ofsted report says that only around half of Connexions staff have direct contact with young people, and that in Lincolnshire and Rutland that figure dropped to just 40 per cent.?
	Can he also confirm that this year, with a budget of £429 million, the Connexions service is spending just £4.5 million—1 per cent.—with voluntary organisations that work with the most vulnerable young people in our society? Does he accept that growing bureaucracy is one of the main reasons why many voluntary organisations often see Connexions as a rival, not a partner, and what steps is he taking to address that problem before voluntary organisations completely lose faith in the Connexions service?

Ivan Lewis: In a recent debate, I made a commitment to the hon. Gentleman that I would analyse the relationship between Connexions and the voluntary and community sector. I can bring him the good news that in fact the proportion of money that is spent on voluntary and community services in Connexions partnerships areas is not 1 per cent. The guidance said that it should be 5 per cent.; we believe that on average it is 6 per cent. We accept that the development of a new service will have strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses that were identified in the initial Ofsted report included the need for better quality assurance systems and for a more strategic approach to the involvement of young people. We must address those concerns.
	We do not pretend that an entirely new service has got everything right. It is important, however, to support the positive partnerships that are taking place and to recognise the fact that young people are getting an integrated service that brings together all the professionals in communities to ensure that they can overcome the barriers that too often get in the way of progressing and achieving in their learning and their lives.

Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that, welcome as the Ofsted report is, it is even more important to get the kind of positive response that he got from parents and users at the Connexions centre in Burnley when he visited it? That shows that the Connexions service is doing an excellent job, and supports what the Ofsted report says.

Ivan Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comments. Burnley is going through difficult times. On my recent visit, it was encouraging and reassuring to meet young people who are benefiting from the Connexions service by seeing life chances and opportunities opening up. We need such policy developments to ensure that people in areas such as Burnley do not turn to extremist parties, but see the direct benefits of mainstream politics and politicians. One of those benefits is the development of the Connexions service, an initiative of which the Government are incredibly proud.

Tuition Fees

Brian Iddon: What evidence he has evaluated on charging different fees for different higher education courses.

Doug Naysmith: What evidence he has evaluated on charging different fees for different higher education courses.

Charles Clarke: As our White Paper identified, a number of independent reports have shown that graduate earnings vary significantly, depending on a student's chosen course and university. For example, a new report published this week by the Centre for the Economics of Education confirms that graduates from Russell group universities are likely to earn more than those from other universities. Given that difference in potential earnings, and given the need to increase funding for higher education, we consider that the fairest way to proceed is to have a variable fee regime.

Brian Iddon: My right hon. Friend knows that courses in the science and engineering disciplines are far more expensive to run than other courses, and that we are desperately short of good-quality graduates in those fields. If differential fees are allowed, universities might take the option of charging higher fees for those courses. Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the continuing closure of science and engineering departments? The latest announcement is that King's college's chemistry department might close. Would not the introduction of differential fees make matters worse?

Charles Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's concern about any potential closures of university science and engineering departments. We are discussing with universities and the industries concerned how to mitigate that. I do not accept, however, that a variable fee regime would have the implications that he describes. In fact, there is a good deal of evidence that for both men and women, higher returns over and above two or more A-levels are associated with studying medicine, law, economics, maths and engineering—subjects such as those that my hon. Friend mentions—and it is not unreasonable that the fees regime should reflect that.

Doug Naysmith: My right hon. Friend mentioned medicine as a subject that might fall into the category that needs special attention. He knows that there is an increasing need for doctors in the national health service, partly due to the immense investment that we are making in it. Does he share my anxiety and that of the British Medical Association that the differential fee policy could have a disproportionate effect on medical students? Has he evaluated the potential effect on the supply of doctors?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend's focus on the state of medical education is correct. I am discussing the way in which we tackle such issues with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. We are considering several alternative routes, including the golden hellos and handshakes that already apply in some disciplines. My hon. Friend is right to raise the matter, but I believe that we have solutions to ensure a continuing supply of good, high-quality medical students who are committed to expanding the health service.

David Rendel: Given that the latest evidence shows that some courses carry a negative graduate premium, does the Secretary of State accept that, according to his logic, those who take such courses should be paid to go to university?

Charles Clarke: I do not accept that, hon. Members will be surprised to know. The impact of the regime will happen over four or five years as we ascertain the way in which universities and vice-chancellors decide to deal with specific courses. There will be much more variety in fees than people currently believe. Some universities will probably reduce the fees from the current £1,100—possibly even to zero—to take account of some of the factors that the hon. Gentleman described. We will therefore have a more diverse system, which will be generally beneficial.

Ian Gibson: Industries in the United States put millions of dollars without strings attached into their local universities, thus allaying many of their financial problems. Why does not that culture prevail in this country?

Charles Clarke: I think the reason is that the relationship between the higher education sector and industry is not strong enough. We are actively promoting discussion about that. For example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I hosted a seminar with the Confederation of British Industry and universities to discuss the matter. As my hon. Friend knows, despite the extra money from business to which he referred, American universities charge fees that are massively higher than anything that we anticipate in this country. I do not believe that there is a connection between the issue that my hon. Friend raised and the variable fee regime.

Adam Price: The Centre for the Economics of Education study to which the Secretary of State referred concluded that the introduction of differential fees would make the signal that is attached to a degree fuzzier to employers and reinforce existing divisions in the university sector. Does the Secretary of State agree?

Charles Clarke: I do not agree. The most interesting fact in the survey is the 2.5 to 6 per cent. variation in earnings premium for students at Russell group universities. It concludes that some universities could charge between £3,000 and £7,000 a year more, and that that would be justified by the premium. We suggest nothing like such a variation, but it is reasonable to show clearly and directly that society and the individual benefit from university education. That should be acknowledged.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that excellent regional universities—for example, the University of Northumbria at Newcastle and Sunderland—are anxious that they will be at a disadvantage if an élite group of universities, mainly in the south-east of England, are allowed to raise their fees to figures upwards of £10,000 a year, as today's newspapers reported the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education as saying?

Charles Clarke: First, nobody is anticipating putting fees up to that kind of level. Secondly, my hon. Friend's question gives me the chance to pay tribute to the five universities in the north-east that are working extremely well together to promote the kind of collaboration that we have been describing, precisely to avoid the effects about which my hon. Friend has expressed concern. It is through that form of collaboration that we can establish a regime that will enrich the university sector as a whole in an entirely beneficial way.

Teacher Redundancies

Robert Syms: What discussions he has had with teaching unions about teacher redundancies in financial year 2003–04.

David Miliband: Ministers and officials have regular discussions with teaching unions covering a wide range of issues. We are working with local government to ensure that the growth in teacher and support staff numbers is sustained, as promised in 1997 and 2001.

Robert Syms: Does the Minister understand the real concern in Poole that, in an authority area in which more than 100 per cent. of the standard spending assessment has been passported to schools, there are going to be redundancies among teachers and classroom assistants? Parents in Poole do not want excuses; they want an acknowledgment that there is a problem and a will to sort it out.

David Miliband: I am slightly disappointed by the tone of the hon. Gentleman's question, since he came to the Department with a group of representatives from Poole and had an extremely useful meeting with me about these issues.

Graham Brady: It was not very useful.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman might say that, but I have had a letter from the chief executive in Poole saying how useful the meeting was, and that one of the things that had resulted from it was a new dialogue with the schools to try to overcome the problem. That is the kind of action that we like to see.

Dave Watts: May I urge the Minister not to take any notice of Conservative Members crying out for more resources? Many of the authorities that are making people redundant—or claiming that they will have to do so—are receiving vast amounts more than authorities such as St. Helens. Will he resist those calls?

David Miliband: I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for schools in St. Helens and that he is as pleased as I am by the enormous increase in achievement in both the primary and secondary sectors. The Government's commitment is to a fair system of funding, and I am glad that my hon. Friend thinks that it is working well.

Andrew Robathan: Will the Minister now admit that he has been entirely wrong? Will he come to Leicestershire and see how we are having to set deficit budgets and make teachers redundant because of the Government's failure of policy? Apparently, everyone else is wrong except those on the Government Front Bench. Well, what about the story in The Times which says that 3,000 teachers are to be made redundant across the country? They cannot all be wrong. How about the Minister saying sorry and admitting that he is wrong?

David Miliband: There are important and serious issues around the country. Thanks to the Government's economic policies, Leicestershire has half the level of people on income support than the national average, and that is reflected in its funding position. It is also significant, however, that the variation in funding for different schools across Leicestershire is one of the highest in the country. There is fully 10 per cent. difference between the schools that have been helped the most and those that have been helped the least.

Geoffrey Robinson: The Minister will be aware from his visit to my constituency that standards in all the schools are continuing to rise very encouragingly under the policies of his Government. It would, however, be a pity to see certain schools falling back on account of the very marginal shortfall in Coventry, which got the full 7 per cent. The Minister will be aware that this does not involve a huge amount of money—about £1 million—and if there could be some sort of indicative arrangement as to what we might expect next year, the schools would be encouraged to carry on with their full complement this year.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend has spoken well about the achievements in Coventry schools. I know that the local education authority is working hard with the local schools to ensure that any problems are overcome, and making use of the flexibilities that were offered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week.

Vocational Qualifications

Paul Holmes: What progress has been made on increasing flexibility for vocational qualifications to meet local employer needs.

Ivan Lewis: The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is now working closely with the Learning and Skills Council and the Sector Skills Development Agency to develop a high-quality system of vocational qualifications that will respond to the needs of both employers and learners.

Paul Holmes: I am sure that the Minister will join me in congratulating further education colleges on the excellent work that they do in meeting employers' training needs. Is he aware, however, that they face two major difficulties in doing so? First, they can offer only the formal qualifications approved by the Government, which are often not what local employers want. Secondly, the provision of training of the type that is wanted at the time and place required to meet the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises is difficult within the funding regime administered by the Learning and Skills Council. Will the Minister assure the House that he will be meeting representatives of the FE colleges to try to overcome those obstacles and to allow the colleges the freedom and flexibility that they need in order fully to meet employers' needs?

Ivan Lewis: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise the centrality of further education in the context of employer training. We think that the new "success for all" investment and reform vision for further education will give colleges incentives to form much closer relationships with employers. We also believe that the skills strategy we will publish next month will be fundamentally concerned with creating an education and training system that is far more focused on employers' needs than has historically been the case. We want, for instance, to ensure that funds give incentives for the development of the right kind of relationships, and that the qualifications framework is flexible enough to make employers want to sign up for investment in vocational qualifications.
	I believe that the reform of further education and the skills strategy will deal directly with the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Derek Foster: I am delighted to hear that the education and training programme is to be focused more on employers' needs. Was my hon. Friend—like me when I read about it at the weekend—a little distressed to learn that most resources for training in work tend to be taken by those who are already highly educated? Are the Government not right to focus on those in vocational education now, if we are to close the productivity gap on which the Chancellor is concentrating? Is not what my hon. Friend has just said absolutely right?

Ivan Lewis: I am always delighted to hear colleagues describe what I have said as "absolutely right"—and relatively non-controversial.
	I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. One thing that the skills strategy will seek to do is to clarify, once and for all, what constitutes appropriate state investment in education and training. We must give priority to those seeking qualifications up to level 2 if we are to narrow that productivity and competitiveness gap, and we must ensure that we get the best possible value for money. That is not to say that higher-level qualifications do not matter, but when it comes to adult learning we must put resources into helping people to achieve level 2 qualifications.

Roy Beggs: If more employers, or their nominees, volunteered to serve as governors in schools and colleges, could they not bring influence to bear and create greater flexibility in the sphere of vocational qualifications? Will the Minister pay tribute to employers who serve voluntarily in school and college managements, and encourage more to do so?

Ivan Lewis: I do pay tribute to those individuals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear his wish to see a daily, dynamic relationship between employers and schools, colleges and universities. One way in which such a relationship can manifest itself is through employers serving on governing bodies. That would also make educational institutions focus more on the needs of the labour market than they have historically.
	Over the next couple of years, we shall be introducing enterprise education into the national curriculum for the first time, and we are building much closer local relationships between employers and schools, especially through the specialist schools programme. That is fundamental to improving educational opportunities for young people, but also to improving the competitiveness and productivity of our economy.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

Andrew Stunell: What plans he has to improve his Department's monitoring of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

David Miliband: Ministers and officials hold regular meetings with the QCA. It is currently focused on the smooth delivery of this year's tests and exams, but a new memorandum of understanding between the Department and the QCA will be published shortly.

Andrew Stunell: Does the Minister recall that this time last year Werneth high school in my constituency was one of 500 schools that did not receive their English and maths key stage 3 exam papers until two days after the exams? Does he recall that it took four months for the QCA to admit to the schools that it had provided an unacceptable level of service? Is he satisfied that this year he has a tight enough grip on the QCA to avoid a repetition of the stress and the pressure on schools and children that that failure caused?

David Miliband: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has left us in terrible suspense about whether the exam papers have arrived for this year. Such confirmation would be rather more comforting proof than would fine words from me that the system is working better. I have had no reports that Werneth high school has been suffering problems this year.

School Budgets (Cornwall and Scilly Isles)

Andrew George: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the 2003–04 budget settlement upon schools in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.

Stephen Twigg: The increase in education formula spending share for Cornwall for 2003–04 is 6.4 per cent., and the increase for the Isles of Scilly is 6.6 per cent. I welcome Cornwall county council's decision to pass on more than 105 per cent. of the increase in schools funding to its schools budget, resulting in an increase in the local education authority's schools budget of 8.9 per cent.

Andrew George: I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary for that response. When I debated this issue with the Minister for School Standards on 2 April, he accepted the fact that the LEA was passporting—indeed, more than passporting—funds to local schools. Where has all of the Department's promised money gone, and has it got its sums right? What comfort can the Under-Secretary offer to schools in my constituency and throughout Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, which are having to make very difficult decisions about issuing redundancies to highly valued teachers?

Stephen Twigg: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he is doing on this issue following the debate in April. We have made it very clear that this is a shared responsibility between central Government and local government, and the Department is working with the LEA. The additional flexibilities announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week should assist with that process. We want to continue to work with Cornwall to ensure that the money gets to where we all want it to be—in the schools.

Higher Education

Gary Streeter: What proposals he has to help students from modest backgrounds to gain access to higher education.

Margaret Hodge: Under our proposals, no student will need to pay up-front tuition fees. We will also reintroduce maintenance grants and require universities charging higher fees to offer bursaries. Unlike the Conservatives, we intend to increase opportunities for students from modest backgrounds to access higher education—not cut them.

Gary Streeter: Does the Minister accept that one consequence of the existing funding regime for higher education is that increasing numbers of students are staying at home and going to their local university, rather than going away—as many of us did in the 1970s—and enjoying, let us say, the wider benefits of higher education? Is that not regrettable, and does she not agree that her proposal to increase tuition fees will actually make the situation worse? Would it not be better to scrap them?

Margaret Hodge: When the hon. Gentleman went to university, probably one in 10 young people did so; now, four in 10 do so. There are many and varied ways in which people participate in higher education: some at their local university, some in the workplace, some part-time, and others through e-learning. That should be welcomed. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman's party to abolish any contribution towards tuition fees would simply mean fewer students, less resources and less independence.

Tony Cunningham: One of the obstacles to access to higher education for many people in my constituency is the distance that they have to travel—the nearest university is almost 100 miles away. Will the Minister therefore agree to study Sir Brian Fender's recent report, which points the way forward for greater access to higher education in Cumbria?

Margaret Hodge: I am looking forward to reading Sir Brian's report on access to higher education in Cumbria, and to discussing the recommendations with hon. Members representing that area. I agree entirely that we have to ensure proper access for every talented young person, wherever they live.

Peter Luff: Does the Minister not understand that the proposal for a variable fee regime could be the final straw for many students from modest backgrounds? Their parents, if they struggle through the bizarre and byzantine forms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, discover that they are eligible for various tax credits. But if they struggle through the equally byzantine forms of the Department for Education and Skills, they discover that their children are not eligible for a student loan. Will that not be the final straw for such people?

Margaret Hodge: The final straw for students from low-income backgrounds, in terms of ensuring access to higher education, would be the Conservative party's policy, which would cut places and yet again centralise university admissions.

School Playing Fields

Andrew Love: What policy his Department has on the sale of school playing fields.

Stephen Twigg: We are committed to protecting school playing fields, which is why we introduced legislation in 1998 to stop uncontrolled sell-offs. I will shortly be placing in the Library a portfolio that sets out our policy, and which lists those applications that have been allowed and have resulted in the loss of land capable of forming a school sports pitch.

Andrew Love: May I raise two concerns with my hon. Friend—about London local authorities selling school playing fields in other local authority areas; and about school extensions that are encroaching, a victim of success, on to school playing fields? Is my hon. Friend confident that the current guidance is strong enough to deal with all eventualities?

Stephen Twigg: I am confident that guidance is strong enough, though we must keep it under review. We have said that we want to stop the previous Government's policy of forcing schools to sell off their playing fields. Approval is now given only when the remaining playing fields and sports facilities meet the needs of local schools and local communities. We have also introduced the requirement that, when a sale takes place, all its proceeds go to sports provision or education. I am sure that all will welcome that.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Industrial Accidents

Vincent Cable: How many successful manslaughter charges have been brought in each of the last three years by the Crown Prosecution Service in cases of fatalities in industrial accidents.

Harriet Harman: I am afraid that the figures that I can give the House are not 100 per cent. reliable. However, on the basis of national figures held by the Crown Prosecution Service, I understand that in the last three years, 39 defendants were charged with corporate manslaughter. Ten were found not guilty, 13 guilty, and 16 are yet to be completed.

Vincent Cable: Can the Solicitor-General explain why, after 3,000 deaths at work over the last six years—a third of them due to negligence—and from the cases that she mentioned and others, only one executive or director has gone to prison for manslaughter? If it does not reflect a failure in the prosecution system, it reflects a failure in the legislation. Can she explain why the Government have this week introduced legislation on corporate killing that specifically excludes named individuals?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to concern about that matter. Two aspects need to be taken into account: the substantive law itself, and the implementation of the law. On implementation, it is important that all the prosecution agencies—the Crown Prosecution Service and the Health and Safety Executive—work closely with those who are investigating the problem, which includes the British Transport police as well as the police. Enforcing the law as it stands is vitally important. Whether the substantive law is right is another question. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my Home Office colleagues are introducing legislation to ensure that those whose actions result in the death of employees at work are called to account.

Caroline Flint: May I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the case of Steven Parsons, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Parsons in Warmsworth in my constituency, who died aged 18 on 7 March 2000? He was working under a 16-tonne fairground lorry when it fell and crushed him. He was a trainee mechanic working under supervision, and the Government vehicle examiner, Peter Moses, stated that the method used to carry out the job was "unsafe and reckless practice". The case went to court under health and safety legislation, but the family feel that the issue of manslaughter should be taken much more seriously in such cases. This was a life that did not need to be put out.

Harriet Harman: I will write to my hon. Friend to explain why it was decided that insufficient evidence was available to mount a prosecution for corporate manslaughter. However, my hon. Friend has just brought this case to my attention and I would like to express my condolences to the Parsons family for the loss of their lovely son at such a young age. I also commend them because I understand that they are working to improve health and safety generally across the board. For our part, the Government will ensure that the substantive law is improved and that no stone is left unturned in the investigation and prosecution of cases.

John Burnett: Does the Solicitor-General agree that there would be an increase in successful prosecutions for manslaughter and for other offences if there were a more rigorous case management regime for criminal trials? That is one of the recommendations made by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and it would involve the legal aid regime recognising the importance of the pre-trial phase. Incidentally, does the Solicitor-General believe that a new UN resolution could provide a defence to any unlawful actions that preceded it?

Harriet Harman: I detect that the hon. Gentleman has raised two issues. On the first, he is right. We must get the substantive law right, but the success or otherwise of a prosecution depends on issues such as how the cases are investigated, whether the right charges are laid, whether the police are given the right legal advice about what the charges should be, whether the evidence at the scene is properly preserved, how the case is managed and how promptly it is brought to court. As for his other point—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Solicitor-General need not answer the second question.

Domestic Violence

Andrew Love: If she will make a statement on her Department's handling of cases of domestic violence.

Harriet Harman: The Crown Prosecution Service, which the Attorney-General and I superintend, handles about 13,000 cases of domestic violence each year. Most are dealt with in the magistrates courts, but domestic violence also results in serious injury and death, and such cases are dealt with in the Crown court. The Government and the CPS are strongly committed to effective prosecution of domestic violence, so that women and children are protected and perpetrators are held to account for their crimes.

Andrew Love: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and I invite her to use her powers of appeal against lenient sentences, so that we can get across the message that such offences will not be tolerated.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises an important point about sentencing in cases of domestic violence. If women go through the ordeal of domestic violence, have to go to court to support a prosecution and the man is simply given a slap on the wrist, the impression is that the courts have not taken the matter seriously and other women will think, "What's the point?" The Attorney-General and I take the issue seriously and we have the power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal if they are, in our view, unduly lenient. In domestic violence cases, we will send—and have sent—cases to the Court of Appeal, because the lower courts have not taken them seriously enough. On several occasions, the Court of Appeal has agreed with us and increased the sentence. I remind hon. Members that they can refer such cases to us if examples come to their attention in their constituencies.

Nick Hawkins: I thank the Solicitor-General for the answers that she has given on this important matter. She is aware that I have dealt with many domestic violence injunction cases in county courts. Will she recognise that many people are concerned that the police are still too slow to respond to reports of domestic violence? Will she use her good offices to try to liaise with police forces, to ensure that reports of domestic violence receive a prompt response from the police? Will she also recognise that appeal against over-lenient sentences, which she has just mentioned, was one of the most important powers introduced by the previous Conservative Government?

Harriet Harman: Yes, I acknowledge that the powers introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal were an important change in the law by the previous Government, and I give them full credit for that. The police have changed their attitude and are stepping up their act on domestic violence. Part of that is a general change in attitude and a recognition across society that attacking a woman in the home is every bit as bad as attacking a stranger in the street. The police response is improving and ACPO is monitoring that. It is important that the police have the right powers and information, and a good partnership with the CPS. We want men to realise that if they attack their wives and girlfriends, they are not ordinary, upstanding members of the community, but criminals—and as bad as any other sort of criminal. We must get the issue out from behind closed doors and make people recognise that domestic violence is a crime that will be investigated and prosecuted.

Gun Crime

Betty Williams: What guidelines the Director of Public Prosecutions issues on the prosecution of gun crime.

Harriet Harman: When considering a case involving guns, the Crown Prosecution Service is governed by the code for Crown prosecutors. In addition, the DPP has issued guidance to prosecutors relating to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.

Betty Williams: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. She will be aware that people in Wales and the rest of the UK have been concerned for a long time about gun crime. Does she agree that the recent gun amnesty exercise was very successful, and a step in the right direction? Will she say what more can be done to build on that success?

Harriet Harman: I am well aware of the widespread concern in Wales and England about the increasing use of guns—by gangs, as part of their business in drugs and organised crime, and by individuals, who now carry guns much more regularly. I know that there is a problem in Wales, but there are also particular problems in London and Manchester. Again, it is a matter of the police and the CPS working together, and of having the right substantive law. In the case of gun crime, it is also a matter of supporting witnesses. It is often very difficult for victims or witnesses to feel that they can come forward, as they fear that they will be intimidated if they give evidence against a gang. We have been working with the Home Office and the police to make sure that people prepared to come forward to enforce the law against guns will be protected by the criminal justice system, in support of prosecutions.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

John Reid: The business for the week after the Whitsun recess will be as follows:
	Monday 2 June—The House will not be sitting.
	Tuesday 3 June—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Fire Services Bill.
	Wednesday 4 June—Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day]. Until 4 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Pensions Crisis", followed by a debate on the euro. Both debates arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
	Thursday 5 June—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Accessions) Bill.
	Friday 6 June—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 9 June—Second Reading of the Courts Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 10 June—Motion to approve a money resolution on the Sustainable Energy Bill.
	The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
	Wednesday 11 June—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 12 June—Debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 13 June—Private Members Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for June will be as follows:
	Thursday 5 June—A debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Human Rights Annual Report 2002.
	Thursday 12 June—Debate on reports from the Environmental Audit Committee, the Science and Technology Committee and the Trade and Industry Committee on energy issues.
	Thursday 19 June—A debate on the report from the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on affordable housing.
	Thursday 26 June—A debate on the report from the International Development Committee on the humanitarian crisis in Southern Africa.

Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business.
	It will not surprise you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I have brought with me an extract from the New Statesman that I think will interest the House. If I may, however, I should like in that context to do something that you know I am very reluctant to do—that is, quote myself. [Hon. Members: "Come on!"] Well, it is usually good value.
	On 15 May, at column 462 of Hansard, I said that the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) had
	"contradicted each other completely on the vital matter of the advice that the Attorney-General had given the Government about the post-war Iraq settlement."
	I went on to remind the House that the Foreign Secretary had said that
	"all the actions that we have taken have been taken strictly in accordance with legal advice";
	but pointed out that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood had said that she believed
	"that the UK could and should have respected the Attorney-General's advice."—[Official Report, 15 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 462.]
	My question—I hope the Leader of the House will either clarify this today or make provision in our business for it to be clarified as a matter of urgency—is about the fact that in the New Statesman we have what appears to be an authentic document; it is headed "Confidential", addressed to the Prime Minister and entitled "Iraq: Authorisation for an Interim Administration". It is allegedly from Lord Goldsmith QC, the Attorney-General, and is dated 26 March 2003.
	I shall read two brief extracts from the document to show its importance. It states, and this is quoting the Attorney-General:
	"my view is that a further Security Council resolution is needed to authorise imposing reform and restructuring of Iraq and its Government."
	Later, it states that
	"the longer the occupation of Iraq continues, and the more the tasks undertaken by an interim administration depart from the main objective, the more difficult it will be to justify the lawfulness of the occupation".
	On the face of it, those are astonishing revelations. If they are true, they set completely at odds with one another what the Foreign Secretary told us and what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood—a former Secretary of State for International Development—told us. This is a serious matter. It goes to the heart of our constitution; it goes to the heart of the responsibilities of the House; and I challenge the Leader of the House to tell us whether that document is authentic. If it is not, presumably we can set the matter aside. If it is authentic, however, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, or will we now get the full advice given by the Attorney-General at each stage of the Iraq episode?
	I should like the Leader of the House to provide some time for the Prime Minister to come to the House immediately after the recess to give some explanations and, indeed, apologies for the following matters. First, in PMPs on 14 May—[Hon. Members: "PMPs?"] Yes, Prime Minister's porkies. The Prime Minister said:
	"What is very clear, as the right hon. Gentleman has just admitted, is that he"—
	my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—
	"wants people to say no to European enlargement".
	That was the Prime Minister's accusation. Well, how was it that, last night, on the Bill to give effect to the enlargement—the European Union (Accessions) Bill—every Member of Parliament, including all the Conservative Members, voted for enlargement of the European Union? Patently, the Prime Minister was pathetically wrong, so will he please come to the House and admit it, and tell us where he got that astonishing assertion, which, within 24 hours, was proved to be completely wrong?
	It gets worse. The Prime Minister said that the Conservative party
	"is now opposed not just to the single currency but to accession by the 10 new states",
	which we have just demonstrated to be nonsense. He went on to say:
	"There is no point in his saying that he"—
	my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition—
	"is in favour of accession but opposed to the European Convention, which is necessary to make the accession work."—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 306.]
	That is another of the Prime Minister's favourite little ploys. But, Mr. Speaker, you will know, because you study these matters, that the Library of the House of Commons, on page 51 of research paper 03/48, states:
	"While the Convention is looking at reforms to help make a larger Union function more efficiently and transparently, it has not been part of the enlargement process itself . . . The Convention and its outcome are not prerequisites for accession, the sole legal basis for which is the Accession Treaty."
	The Prime Minister was wrong—plain wrong, factually wrong—and the House of Commons Library says so. Will the Prime Minister come and make another apology to the House for being completely wrong again?
	It gets worse. [Hon. Members: "Oh no!"] Oh yes. Because in PMPs yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
	"The true agenda of the right hon. Gentleman"—
	my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—
	"and many other Conservative Members is to get this country out of the European Union."—[Official Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 1005.]
	We know that the Prime Minister said that in his now notorious election address when he stood for election in 1983, so he may have been thinking of his own words, but my challenge to the Leader of the House is this: can he produce any Conservative manifesto, any Conservative policy document or any statement by a Conservative spokesman that bears out what the Prime Minister said? We need time in the House for that to be clarified, and I want the Leader of the House to do so as a matter of urgency because those sorts of distortions cannot be allowed to continue; they must be either apologised for or at the very least clarified, and the Government must provide the time for that to be done as a matter of urgency.
	It has come to my attention that there is at least the possibility that two battalions of our wonderful military in Iraq may find that their home leave is about to be postponed so that they may assist in Baghdad. The Leader of the House may or may not be able to tell us whether or not that is true, but at the very least I want him to guarantee to the House that, in such an eventuality, the Secretary of State for Defence will make an urgent statement to the House because the matter is obviously of great importance to the military and, moreover, to their families. I hope that we will be kept fully informed, within the constraints of time and the coming recess.
	There is another question that affects the Ministry of Defence: what is happening in the Congo? If there is a possibility of our military being involved in the Congo in any way at all, not least in connection with the European security and defence policy—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is not telling me how to run my affairs.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the House understands that those are important matters, and I know that the Leader of the House will take them very seriously because I am asking him to ensure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a full statement to the House in the event of any military involvement by British forces in the Congo, particularly if it is under the auspices of the ESDP.
	I have just two other matters to raise quickly. May we please have an urgent education debate in Government time so that Labour Members can demonstrate their wholehearted support for Labour's policy on student tuition fees? Such a debate would help the Government to show what enthusiasm there is among those on the Labour Benches for the Government's policy and how wholeheartedly they condemn our policy to get rid of student tuition fees. I am sure that that would be helpful to all.
	Finally, will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to come to the House to clarify what he said on 19 May:
	"I am convinced that this will encourage other Parliamentary Private Secretaries to believe that there is life after bag carrying. I sincerely hope so, as we approach the possibility of a forthcoming reshuffle."—[Official Report, 19 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 729.]
	I have heard that there may be a Government reshuffle tomorrow. Can the Leader of the House confirm that? If not, can he tell us when it will be?

John Reid: As ever, it was a great pleasure to listen to the right hon. Gentleman. It was almost worth travelling through the night just to hear him this morning.
	May I congratulate him on the breadth of his literary intake, which now appears to include the New Statesman? The right hon. Gentleman refers to an alleged leak. On that serious subject, as he knows, we do not release in detail—nor did any previous Government—the Attorney-General's advice, but we have made it plain that the Attorney-General's advice throughout has been that the Government have been acting lawfully on all those matters.
	It was always the case, incidentally, that we wanted a fresh United Nations resolution, and the House will be pleased to hear that we have a reasonable expectation that, in the very near future—perhaps in the next few hours—we might have such a resolution passed. I hope that the House will be pleasantly surprised by the degree of support that we get for such a resolution, notwithstanding all the predictions of gloom and doom that have been made and that normally accompany the allegations that have been repeated again today.
	As regards Europe, I am sorry that I was not here last night to note the exception that proved the rule on Europe—the Conservatives attempting to prove, in a completely engineered Division, that they had moved forward some decades in their view of Europe—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) issues challenges continually on Europe, and he has issued another today demanding that we give some evidence of an Opposition spokesman expressing resolute pessimism about Europe and opposition to it.

Eric Forth: indicated assent.

John Reid: The right hon. Gentleman nods again. He wants me to stand here and say things such as:
	"With hindsight the European Union is not acceptable since we joined . . . the whole thing was probably a mistake."
	Those were the right hon. Gentleman's words in his address to the Anti-Common Market League on 21 January—[Interruption.] Opposition Members have suddenly stopped nodding; they suddenly appear as stone, with the occasional laugh from the Benches behind. I shall repeat the words:
	"With hindsight the European Union is not acceptable since we joined".
	I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, having issued the challenge, would claim that those words were a deviation from policy or that, as on many other occasions, he is thoroughly unrepresentative of those on the Benches behind him. I know, however, that he is representative of his whole party—to the Conservative party, the European Union is, in the words that he challenged me to find, "not acceptable". Having met that challenge, let us move on to the right hon. Gentleman's other challenges.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised a serious matter relating to the movements of our military in Iraq. I can tell him and the House that there are no current plans to deploy UK troops to Baghdad other than the troops who are already there to protect the UK embassy. Of course routine contingency planning continues, as it does for all armed forces, but no decisions have been taken. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to assure him, which I will do, that, as is the normal custom, Defence Ministers will write to the leaders of the main Opposition parties and to the Chairman of the Defence Committee if arrangements are to be put in place regarding the deployment of 16 Air Assault Brigade, which he mentioned specifically.
	On the question of the Congo, the House is aware that requests have been made. Consideration has been given to any movements, and I can say with confidence that the Defence Secretary—who, along with the Foreign Secretary, has been more attentive to the needs of the House in terms of bringing information to it over the past few months than perhaps any Defence Secretary in recent memory—would of course wish to keep the House fully informed on that.
	On education, I am always looking for opportunities to let the House debate issues pertinent to education, including the massive additional expenditure of £800 per pupil in this country since we came to office, record primary school results, 25,000 more teachers and 80,000 more classroom assistants. The more opportunity we have to debate those issues the better.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's other point, I hope that all members of the Cabinet are around to take part in such debates. I cannot confirm one way or the other whether or when there will be a reshuffle. Of course, we never know. I recall—I hope that it is not breaking any Cabinet secrets—that when Lord Robertson left the House to take up his post as Secretary-General of NATO, and was given the accolade that he deserved in Cabinet and asked to respond, he started with the words, "Prime Minister, this is the last meeting of the Cabinet which I shall attend," looked round the Cabinet and added, "And that is something that no one round this table will be able to say." Reshuffles tend to visit themselves on us with less news in advance than all of us would hope for. I am not, however, aware that a reshuffle is forthcoming, and I am sure that if it were the right hon. Gentleman would, out of courtesy, be among the first to know.

Paul Tyler: I welcome the Leader of the House back from Seville and hope that he is not nursing a hangover. Will he comment on the text of the letter that the Prime Minister sent to the manager of Celtic saying:
	"I have asked John Reid who, as you may know, is a Celtic fan, to represent the Government at the game and to underline our support for your efforts"?
	May I ask since when has it become necessary for a member of the Cabinet to be sent to a football match? Does that responsibility lie with the Leader of the House, or would it usually be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? On this occasion, will her consolation prize for not going to Seville be the opportunity to chair a sitting of the Modernisation Committee in the Leader of the House's absence?
	I return to the question of the Attorney-General's role and responsibilities. The Leader of the House must recognise that outstanding questions remain, not least the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked the Solicitor-General a few minutes ago. For example, is it possible for a United Nations resolution to give an action retrospective legal sanction? We do not know; we have not heard an answer. The situation draws attention to the fact that, as the Attorney-General is a Member of the other place, there is no way in which elected representatives can hold him to account in this Chamber. Surely that raises an important constitutional issue. Would a way round that problem be for the Attorney-General to attend a sitting of the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department so that he could be questioned on matters of considerable importance such as those raised today?
	That situation highlights the difficulties that hon. Members have encountered since the departure of the former Secretary of State for International Development. The new Secretary of State is not a Member of this House. Are the Government adopting a general practice of giving responsibility for major Departments of State to Members of the other place, who are unelected and thus unrepresentative of, and unaccountable to, the electorate? Surely that shows the importance of putting back into action the current stalled procedure on Lords reform.
	When does the Leader of the House intend to resume the talks that were specifically requested and demanded by the motion that was put to the House on 29 October 2002? He will recall that the Modernisation Committee recommended that specific consultation should take place with Opposition parties on the legislative programme, with particular reference to carry-over, which must be a matter of discussion and consensus. He knows that we have only about 10 legislative weeks before the end of the Session, so when will he resume the consultation discussions?

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman's first point was about the UEFA cup final. I think that the Prime Minister was, to some extent—I am not letting any secrets out here—making a virtue of a necessity because I was going to go to the game anyway. I apologise for having a human streak but when you wait 33 years for your team to get to the final, you tend to want to go—despite the attractions of the Modernisation Committee. I congratulate Porto on its victory but I think that Celtic's performance did us proud.
	I think I am right in saying that we established the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department. It would be advisable for the Committee to issue an invitation to the Attorney-General and to find out what happens—it is not for me to comment on his responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman also asked about carry-over and other procedures, and I shall turn my mind to that soon after the Whitsun recess.

Anne Begg: I am not sure whether this is the right time to remind the Leader of the House that the last time Aberdeen made it to a European final, it actually won. I congratulate Celtic on last night's performance.
	Will the Leader of House put pressure on the Paymaster General to make a further statement after the Whitsun recess on the workings of the new child tax credit and working tax credit? She has already made a statement on that issue but problems are continuing. I received yet another e-mail from a constituent this morning outlining continuing problems getting through to the helpline.
	Further things have come to our notice since the Paymaster General's last statement. Serious computer glitches are holding up the whole process so that even if MPs manage to get through to their helpline, it is not always possible to resolve problems because the computer system cannot cope terribly well. Local Inland Revenue offices are now making interim payments, which they were not geared up to do before, but it has transpired that those payments—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Leader of the House will manage an answer.

John Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful comments on football matters. The Paymaster General has made it plain that we are throwing whatever resources we can at the problems arising from tax credits, and we obviously deeply regret any outstanding problems that remain. If the system is not working to the extent that it should, as my hon. Friend suggests, there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter immediately after the recess because there will be a Westminster Hall debate on tax credits on the Wednesday after our return. The debate will allow her and other hon. Members to point out any problems and suggest solutions.

Stephen O'Brien: I look forward to participating in that Westminster Hall debate. There is an important question about the publication of the Attorney-General's advice. Whatever precedents the Leader of the House prays in aid, the Attorney-General has set his own precedent by publishing legal advice on our engagement in the Iraqi conflict, which supports the claim for publication. Given that the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility is to guard the integrity of the House, is he aware that hon. Members' ability to trust the process is being affected—it is the trust that is under attack? The publication of the Attorney-General's advice would help to sort that out and give us a proper base on which to have knowledge and arguments.

John Reid: Yes, and I think that trust in such matters depends on us being very accurate in what we say. The Attorney-General did not publish his legal advice prior to the military intervention in Iraq. He published a statement confirming that he supported the Government and that the Government's actions were in accordance with international law. He did exactly the same thing, incidentally, on the subject that is currently under discussion when he made it absolutely clear that we had always acted in accordance with international law. As the Prime Minister repeated this morning, the Attorney-General's advice throughout has been that we have acted lawfully. The distinction between what the Attorney-General did on both those occasions and the issue of legal advice itself has always been maintained by previous Governments, as well as this one.

Mark Hendrick: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an article in yesterday's Evening Standard that indicated the effective closure of the locomotive and train industry throughout the country? That could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs, including up to 500 jobs at a plant in my constituency that has been producing trains for more than 100 years. The closure would be a tragedy and a loss of major manufacturing capacity and a major strategic industry in this country. Given the huge implications of the losses, will he raise the matter with the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Transport?

John Reid: I shall certainly do that for my hon. Friend, although I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will in any case have heard his remarks. Whenever a major industry is threatened in any of our constituencies, I understand that hon. Members such as my hon. Friend who are avid guardians of their constituencies' interests will try to find any opportunity to raise the issue. I hope that when such events have been unavoidable, the Government's actions to establish taskforces and to allow debate in the House have risen to meet the scale of the problems.

John Baron: The Leader of the House may be aware that, in the past 18 months or so, I have raised questions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency about the possible risks posed to human health by the activities of a landfill site at Pitsea tip in my constituency. Recently these concerns have been given added focus by the gas emissions and odours emanating from the site. They are causing many residents much distress.
	Will the Leader of the House now urge the Minister for the Environment to reply to my letter dated 6 May and to the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)? The letter calls for independent assessments to be made regarding the possible risk to human health posed by the activities at the site and, in particular, by the gas emissions that are causing much distress. It has taken up to six months to respond to many letters that I have written in the past. That is simply not good enough.

John Reid: I was not aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and I apologise for that. I am sure that the appropriate Minister is aware of them, however. Although the hon. Gentleman said that it has, on some occasions, taken several months to reply to his letters, the letter that he referred to in this instance was received only two weeks ago. I know from the ministerial correspondence with which I have had to deal that the Minister may want to establish accurately and fully the facts of the case before he responds. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and I will undertake to contact the relevant Minister.

Jimmy Hood: May I welcome my right hon. Friend back from his thrill in Seville? I commiserate with him on the result. I thought that the team played well, but the guy who scored the winning goal had been carried off three times and should not have been on the field when he scored.
	Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate in the House—certainly before the summer recess—on the Child Support Agency and its continued mismanagement and failure to support mothers with children who need support? In particular, I refer to the case of Linda Lynch who, for the past nine years, has been cheated and lied to both by her partner and by officers in the CSA, as have her Members of Parliament. She has two had Members of Parliament in the past few years, and she has been cheated of something like £50,000. There are many people in the country like Linda Lynch and it is time that the House revisited the issue of how the CSA is failing women and, in particular, children.

John Reid: I cannot promise a debate here, but I know that my hon. Friend raises these serious matters on every possible occasion. Perhaps an Adjournment debate would be appropriate to debate the issue, not least because I agree with him in general about the distress caused in some of these cases and in this specific case. He referred to two MPs and, if my memory serves me correctly, I think that I may have been connected with this case. I probably was the first MP; the name rings a bell.

Paul Goodman: Yesterday, the Prime Minister said to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
	"let me remind him that he is still a member of Conservatives Against a Federal Europe."—[Official Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 1005.]
	Will the Leader of the House allow the Prime Minister an early opportunity to come to the House to correct yet another misleading statement by him about our party's policy on Europe? Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that it cannot be otherwise, since Conservatives Against a Federal Europe closed down two years ago?

John Reid: It is sometimes impossible to keep up with every development in the plethora of anti-European groups in which Conservative Members involve themselves. For example, there is the fuss being caused over a Convention, which will not make any decisions—they will be made by an intergovernmental conference. Even if it did, it has not even reached the final proposals and, even at this early stage, the Conservatives cannot contain their opposition to the proposals that have been put forward and on which decisions will be made.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to accuracy, and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred earlier to the accuracy of the research paper that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned yesterday. However, what they omitted to mention is that the research paper also states:
	"The Convention is enabling the accession states to have their say in the future structure and methods of the EU and to contribute their views to the reform process on a more or less equal basis to the existing Member States."
	In other words, it is quite clear from the research paper that the Convention is integrally related to the extension of the EU to the new accession states. It says so in the paper.

Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on what is happening on the ground in Iraq? Yesterday, I met a group of Iraqi women who painted a horrifying picture of life in Iraq for women. They say that more than 300 cases of rape have been documented in the hospitals in Baghdad alone since the invasion, and they claim that the coalition is sidelining women, particularly women who want a secular state. In Basra, militant clerics are insisting that women trying to return to higher education have to be veiled. It would seem that there is a dangerous, lawless vacuum and that women are suffering greatly. It is time the House debated what is happening there now and what will happen in the future.

John Reid: I certainly hope that the allegations to which my hon. Friend refers are not accurate. As far as the Government are concerned and, I am sure, the whole coalition, there is no intention, as she put it, to sideline the role of women. In fact, the opposite is true. One of the symbols of how far Iraqis will take an inclusive democratic approach to their own government will be the extent to which women play a role in that.
	Whatever deficiencies there are in Iraq, all of us recognise that the system as it is likely to develop is hardly likely to be worse than it was under Saddam. However, my hon. Friend is right to continue to raise these issues and I can tell her that there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on the Wednesday after we return on the role of the United Nations in the reconstruction and development of Iraq. Perhaps she can seek to raise her concerns on that occasion.

Patrick Cormack: As the Press Gallery is celebrating its 200th anniversary, will the Leader of the House send the congratulations of the House to the inimitable Chris Moncrieff, the chairman of the Press Gallery? When we return, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate on the reporting of Parliament?

John Reid: I have no hesitation in complying with the hon. Gentleman's request and, especially, in congratulating the inimitable Mr. Moncrieff, the chairman of the Lobby, Jon Smith, and the other constituent elements of the Press Gallery on its 200th anniversary. In view of the result, I am only sorry that I could not attend its dinner last night—

Eric Forth: No you're not.

John Reid: I am indeed sorry that I could not attend, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand.
	There are numerous ways in which the contribution of the press—in all its strengths and perhaps some of its weaknesses—to our democracy can be debated in the House. I shall certainly consider whether Westminster Hall or other mechanisms could be deployed to do that in this, the Press Gallery's 200th anniversary year.

Angela Eagle: May I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new duties? He keeps us bouncing up and down, because we sometimes do not know whether he has finished his replies. That keeps us all fit.
	May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1217?
	[That this House welcomes the successful passage through the House of Lords of Lord Lester's Equality Bill, which seeks to modernise the structure of equality legislation in the UK by ensuring that it is streamlined, simplified, more inclusive and more effective; welcomes the surprisingly large measure of agreement which accompanied the progress of the Bill both cross-party and amongst anti-discrimination advocates and business; recognises the progress made by the Government in this area, including the publication of the consultation on the future structure of equality institutions in the UK; and calls upon the Government to bring forward a draft Single Equality Bill with the intention of legislating on it in the current Parliament.]
	The motion calls for a single equality Act that will modernise, simplify and update the anti-discrimination laws in this country, including the strands of religious belief or the lack of it, sexual orientation and age that receive no protection against discrimination in the provision of goods and services. Will it be possible to have a debate in Government time on what is now a long overdue modernisation of the protections against discrimination?

John Reid: The Government understand the objectives behind the Bill and share Lord Lester's desire to advance towards a more equal society and more successful Britain. Equality is a priority for the Government, as demonstrated by the legislation that we have passed or have planned and by our policies to promote equality. However, we do not believe that a complete legislative overhaul is the right approach. It is more productive to pursue incremental improvement and to work for culture change.
	I hope that I have contributed to the health of the House by keeping Members jumping up and down.

Pete Wishart: I think that we are all grateful for the exercise, Mr. Speaker.
	I am quite surprised to see the Leader of the House in the Chamber after the exertions of last night. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating Celtic on a fantastic display last night, and the Celtic football fans. About 70,000 of them descended on Seville, and in the best tradition of Scottish football fans there was not one arrest.
	May I turn the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a less than successful team—the one that currently runs the Scotland Office? May we have an early debate on that issue? We have found after four years of devolution that the running costs of the Scotland Office have increased by about 50 per cent. Similarly, there will be a number of new staff. I do not know what they will do. Presumably they will be in place to entertain a bored Secretary of State who is doing a non-job.

John Reid: First, I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the fans. I hope that the situation continues throughout today and tomorrow as well. There were an astonishing number of fans in Seville without tickets. Their behaviour has been a credit to Scotland and to us all.
	I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on the Scotland Office. He says that running costs have increased by 50 per cent., but that is from a base that is about 1 per cent. of what it was previously. It is a tiny budget, considering the efforts that are made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that across a range of issues Scotland does not lose out in terms of industrial policy, telecommunications and North sea oil, for example. There is a range of policies that create jobs in Scotland and maintain the standard of living there. Instead of constantly talking down those who are defending Scotland's interests, the hon. Gentleman would do better to praise the efforts that they make.

Dari Taylor: Will the Leader of the House find Government time to have a debate on the steel industry? Over the past three years we have had one reorganisation after another. Each reorganisation has undermined the competence of the industry. Each time, thousands of employees have lost their jobs. After the most recent reorganisation, I learned from the Financial Times—not from Corus—that Corus is considering selling off the Teesside site. That will create an enormous problem for my region, involving 3,000 jobs directly and 12,000 indirectly. This is an extremely serious issue for us in Britain. I ask that we have a debate on the industry in Government time.

John Reid: I know the role that my hon. Friend has played as a defender and promoter of the interests of her constituents and of others who are involved in steel production. I have tremendous respect for the role that she has played, not least because I came from a constituency that at one stage was dominated by steel, and which has lost tens of thousands of jobs. I know the hardship that that can bring.
	The industry remains a significant employer and contributes to the economy. It underpins many other parts of manufacturing. I am sure that my hon. Friend, through Adjournment debates and by other means, will continually bring the issue to the forefront of our minds in her fight for her constituents and for others who are employed in the steel industry.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister will have seen The Guardian this morning, with its remarkable report on drugs and the "success" of initiatives in trying to reduce the number of victims of criminals and to reduce the number of criminals who are victims of drugs. Will the right hon. Gentleman try to arrange for an early statement on the Government's response to what is revealed in the report, and for a debate shortly afterwards, so that we can find ways of implementing the intentions, of which there have been a stream, and the money and initiatives, of which there have also been a stream, so that we can introduce effective action and make a real difference?

John Reid: There are issues that unite everyone on both sides of the House. The battle against drugs and the poison that is often poured into the veins of young people in this country is not the exclusive concern of any party in this place. I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that constant vigilance is needed. Today, in cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall, the subject of drugs is on the agenda. The hon. Gentleman may have an early opportunity of raising the issue.

Andrew Dismore: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1223?
	[That this House condemns the decision of the Medical Research Council to close the National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill to downsize and to re-site it in Cambridge in the absence of consultation with the employees.]
	This world-class research facility employs about 700 people in my constituency, and is under immediate threat of closure by the Medical Research Council after inadequate consultation with the staff and the local community. The decision has been condemned not only by local people but by the scientific community at large. Will my right hon. Friend raise this issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which Department is responsible for the MRC, and find time for an early discussion in the House on an important research facility, which it seems we shall lose for the nation?

John Reid: I am aware of the early-day motion to which my hon. Friend refers. No formal decision has been taken on the future of the National Institute for Medical Research. The Medical Research Council is developing a long-term strategy for its major capital investments over the next 10 to 15 years, including the NIMR. The results of the recent consultation exercise on this issue will be considered at a council meeting in July. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have heard my hon. Friend's remarks.

Jenny Tonge: The appointment of a Member of the other place as Secretary of State for International Development is seen by many people as reducing the importance of international development, and could be interpreted as an attempt to take the spotlight off the reconstruction process in Iraq. It is being said also that it may be a first step to taking international development back into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Lest this matter should become a scar on the conscience of the Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House please arrange for his right hon. Friend to make a statement on the issue?

John Reid: The debates in the House, including one today, and debates at the United Nations, where a resolution was proposed by, among others, this Government and this country, are testimony to the attention that we have paid to the issue.
	The budget of the Department for International Development has doubled and the number of Ministers in the Department has increased. I believe that we have gained a Secretary of State of inestimable abilities to deal with the reconstruction of Iraq. That means that there is no need for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or for anyone in Government to have any pricks on their conscience about the matter.

Derek Foster: Although a late convert to the fortunes of Celtic, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will recognise that I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Government's policy of full employment in every region. He will know that 340 jobs have just been lost in the textile industry in my constituency. That brings the total of jobs lost to 1,600 in the past 12 months. Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on manufacturing, with special reference to the north-east and County Durham?

John Reid: Manufacturing has been going through a difficult period for some time. The Government have tried wherever possible to support it. Every job loss is a tragedy. However, it is fair to put that in context and to remember that since the Government came to power about 1.5 million more people are in work than there were before. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and others, such as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who takes a great interest in the regional dimension of our policies, will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said.

Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on precisely what assistance he is willing to offer to Independent Television News in its sad quest to determine the fate of Fred Nearac and Hussein Osman, who were with Terry Lloyd when he was killed 60 days ago? On 9 May, the Secretary of State told ITN that until there was evidence of a war crime it would not be possible to have a formal investigation, and that is fully understood. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet issued an instruction to the military police in Iraq to assist ITN with its searches. Will the right hon. Gentleman please bring this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence? We owe a great deal to these brave men, and their families are extremely distressed.

John Reid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on the interest that he takes in the matter and in military affairs generally. I will certainly bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Paul Flynn: In spite of the valiant efforts of the work force over the past six years to build a successful company, the sad news was announced this morning of the loss of 1,000 jobs at LG Philips in my constituency. That is a result of market conditions. Some of the job losses are due to fair competition and some to unfair competition. More than 1,000 jobs have recently been lost in Newport in the steel industry. Is it not time that we had a major debate on the fate of manufacturing industry and its accelerating decline? It has been the backbone of the British economy, and job losses, as in this case, are terrible tragedies to the 1,000 families involved. There is also a loss of skills and a loss of manufacturing capacity, which are irreplaceable.

John Reid: Of course, the fact that throughout the past few years this country has, both in historical terms and by comparison with any of our competitors, fared far better during the recession is no consolation to anyone who has lost their job, as my hon. Friend described. Wherever there are major job losses, the Government constantly try through taskforces and other means to make sure that, as quickly as possible, skills and jobs are brought back to areas such as his constituency. It is never an easy task, but I am sure that on this occasion, as on previous occasions, the Government will do everything we possibly can.

Martin Smyth: As the Leader of the House knows, the war in Iraq is over and some troops have already been withdrawn. Is he aware that the Royal Army Medical Corps reserves—consultants who are required in their own institutions, where waiting lists are growing—are still being detained in Iraq, while regulars have been brought home? Is it not possible for the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health to co-ordinate movement better, for the well-being of all?

John Reid: I do not know the specific details to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I know that there are enormous pressures on the medical services in particular in the military, which may mean that it has proven difficult to be as flexible about returning home as in the case of other soldiers or members of the armed forces. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. On behalf of the whole House, I pay tribute once again to our armed forces. The fact that they have faced a long delay, as the hon. Gentleman points out, is another indication of the deprivations and sacrifices that the men and women who serve this country so well undertake so willingly. We are all in their debt for that.

David Winnick: With regard to Iraq, would it not help to clear the air to have a debate as soon as possible after the recess, dealing with all aspects of the reconstruction and the role of the occupying powers and the United Nations? Hopefully, the Security Council will pass the resolutions today. In any such debate, should not reference be made to the thousands of corpses that have been discovered—people who were executed by Saddam? Perhaps the critics will tell us whether they now believe that, as so many of us believe, it was justified for the country to be liberated. Incidentally, I believe that senior Ministers should be in the House, and I hope that that point will be taken up by the Prime Minister.

John Reid: I hope that the whole House will agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about the nature of Saddam's regime and the evidence that is forthcoming. It never ceases to amaze me that some of those who concentrate on the important and legitimate question—I do not deny its legitimacy—of the weapons of mass destruction seem completely blind to the fact that thousands of bodies are being unearthed every week by the other side. A balanced approach, as my hon. Friend mentioned, would benefit all of us. He asks for a debate. I know that there is a continual demand for debates on the issue. I do not think that any previous Government have offered so many opportunities for debates and statements on such subjects as the present Government. Just after the Whitsun recess, there is another opportunity for a debate in Westminster Hall on the reconstruction of Iraq.

Bob Spink: In the light of the recent opinion poll that showed that 84 per cent. of people in this country want a referendum on the European constitution, should we not have a debate so that we can explain why the Opposition support a referendum on a constitution and are prepared to listen to the people, whereas the Government are not?

John Reid: As I said earlier, people must recognise that what is being compiled under the Convention is a series of proposals. No decisions will be made by the Convention. They will be made by an intergovernmental conference. If the hon. Gentleman wants to explain anything to people, surely he should explain why the leadership of the Conservative party happily went through the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act without a referendum, and why the Conservative party is suddenly a convert to a referendum when no decisions have even been made by the Convention. The answer is simple: it is another piece of sheer opportunist anti-Europeanism by the Opposition.

Linda Perham: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on the cost of home care services? In my Tory-controlled borough of Redbridge, the self-declared party of the poor and vulnerable is proposing to double the maximum charge for home care from £100 to £200 a week, which has caused great distress to a number of my constituents, including 87-year-old disabled widow, Mrs. Lena Odgers.

John Reid: My hon. Friend refers with a degree of irony, I think, to the Conservative party when she calls it the party of the poor. That will come as a huge piece of news to everyone in Britain, not least the poor, especially after the very limited experiment in compassionate Conservatism which, after several hundred years, the party decided to try, but which it abandoned after 13 months as incompatible with everything else that it stood for.
	The Department of Health's guidance, "Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other non-residential Social Services", seeks to ensure that service users should not have their incomes reduced below basic levels of income support, plus a 25 per cent. buffer, as a result of charges. The guidance provides clear objectives for councils that do charge, to ensure more consistency and fairer charging systems that support social inclusion and the promotion of independence. Sometimes even all those buffers are not strong enough to withstand the assaults of Conservative councils on the poor.

Vincent Cable: Will the Leader of the House arrange a statement from the Government on their plans for the millions of people who wish to continue to draw cash from the post office as their benefit and pension books are withdrawn, particularly in view of the revelation this week that hundreds of thousands of disabled people will not be able to use the proposed PIN machines? Such people are already disadvantaged by the fact that many of them cannot access bank cash machines, which are too tall.

John Reid: I know that Ministers have spent a huge amount of time trying to make sure that, as the system is modernised, it provides a range of options so that people can get the benefits of a modern method of withdrawing their benefits, while minimising the disadvantages, including making themselves the target for attacks, in the case of the old, the elderly and the infirm. As ever, I am sure that Ministers will listen to the hon. Gentleman's point, as it is our intention to ensure that the new system is an advance in what people are offered, not a retrograde step.

Julie Morgan: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 947 which has been signed by a large number of hon. Members from all parties.
	[That this House notes that after 33 years since the Equal Pay Act was introduced, the pay gap between men and women for full-time work remains considerable at 19 per cent.; further notes that the pay gap for part-time work is even larger at 41 per cent, and that this has remained unchanged for the last 25 years; acknowledges that in retirement, women suffer the consequences of a lifetime of pay inequality as the pay gap grows to become an income gap of 44 per cent.; commends recent research commissioned by the Equal Opportunities Commission that shows only 18 per cent, of large employers and 10 per cent, of medium-sized employers have actually carried out a pay review or are in the process of doing so; acknowledges that without conducting a pay review employers may be unaware that pay inequality exists in their organisation; welcomes the steps the Government has already taken to address the pay gap; but urges the Government to go further and give the strongest possible lead to employers.]
	Will he arrange a debate on the subject? Despite the Government's best efforts, we are not making much progress in narrowing the pay gap, and only a small percentage of employers have carried out pay reviews to try to identify where the pay gap is.

John Reid: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that our commitment is beyond question. As a Government, we are leading by example on these matters through commitment to equal pay reviews in Departments and Government agencies, which are on track to be completed in the course of the first half of this year. We are also encouraging employers to pay fairly through the equal pay questionnaire, which was introduced on 6 April, by providing additional funding of more than £150,000 on top of the £145,000 already provided to trade unions for the training of representatives on equal pay issues in the workplace and by funding the pay review toolkits. We are using a range of measures to tackle the problem, but it is a difficult one and I do not pretend for a moment that we have either solved it or gone as far as we would like. Any opportunities for debate, whether in an Adjournment debate, in Westminster Hall or during the debates devoted to the subject of equality of opportunity that occasionally arise in the House, will be occasions on which this worthy topic should be raised.

Peter Luff: May we have a debate on the nature, meaning and understanding of time in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will understand the empathy that I felt with Hamlet in his lament,
	"The time is out of joint; O cursed spite,
	That ever I was born to set it right!",
	when I received from that Department this parliamentary answer, dated 1 May:
	"The Department will be writing to all livestock farmers in England about the new rules on disposal of fallen stock before Easter."—[Official Report, 1 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 457W.]
	I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that Easter fell shortly before 1 May. It took a further question from me, which was answered this week, to drag Ministers back to the same space-time continuum as the rest of us. I was informed that, on 17 April, the Department had indeed written to all livestock farmers regarding the new rules. Even if I cannot have a debate on the more erudite subject that I have suggested, I wonder whether I could have one on that very important subject, as the new rules and regulations are still causing serious distress and anxiety to livestock farmers throughout the country.

John Reid: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having made the most literary contribution to today's business questions. As a matter of fact, Easter occurs every year. I assume that the Department was referring to Easter this year, in which case it will no doubt have noted his reprimand. On the general philosophical subject of time, we should all read Stephen Hawking's book, "A Brief History of Time", which I recommend even if for no other reason than that it brought to my attention the fact that there are 100 billion suns in the galaxy and 100 billion solar systems in the observable universe, so none of us should take ourselves that seriously.

Gordon Prentice: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read early-day motion 1282, which calls for the abolition of the House of Lords Appointments Commission?
	[That this House notes that the House of Lords Appointments Commission has, since its creation, recommended one batch of People's Peers in April 2001 and nothing since; further notes from its web site that it is still actively soliciting applications from putative peers; is deeply concerned that the Commission's running costs are estimated at £120,000 for the past year during which time it has met twice; and believes that the Commission no longer serves a useful purpose, if it ever did, and should be wound up forthwith.]
	How can we possibly justify keeping this body in existence when it has appointed only one batch of people's peers, more than two years ago in April 2001? It costs an arm and a leg—£120,000 a year—but rarely meets.
	On a connected matter, may I ask what is happening to the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform? My right hon. Friend's predecessor was instrumental in selecting hon. Members to serve on the Committee, which is clearly deadlocked. It is split three ways, and I should like to know what plans the Leader of the House has to take House of Lords reform forward.

John Reid: On the last subject, I am tempted to say that I have a cunning plan. I am afraid that I cannot tell the House that I have one at this stage, but I am reflecting on the report that the Joint Committee recently issued. My hon. Friend also asked about the abolition of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. I have seen the early-day motion to which he referred. I cannot extend my sympathy and support towards it, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to make a statement in the not-too-distant future about appointments to the commission and related matters.

Win Griffiths: May I commiserate with my right hon. Friend about last night's result, having been a Celtic supporter ever since I could turn on the wireless on a Saturday night and listen to "Sports Report"? It is a tragedy that we lost last night. He probably has not had time to consider the fact that the first test match with Zimbabwe began at Lord's today. I and my hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for City of York (Hugh Bayley), as well as the Opposition spokesperson on international development, stood outside the ground handing out black armbands to signify the death of democracy in Zimbabwe. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate before the second test match begins in about a fortnight to enable all the Zimbabwean cricketers and exiles, who were out in force today at the ground, to see how the Government are developing their thinking to bring an end to the Mugabe dictatorship and to tyranny, beatings and torture, and to let democracy and the people of Zimbabwe have their say again?

John Reid: The Government's policy on Zimbabwe has not changed. For the reasons that my hon. Friend mentioned, we will do our utmost to maintain international pressure through sanctions while using dialogue between ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change aimed at restoring Zimbabwe to democracy, prosperity and stability. He will know that we have already introduced targeted measures against the regime, which were rolled over unanimously by the European Union in February. We are handling the matter proactively in a range of international spheres. We will certainly continue to do that and I hope that he will find opportunities in the House to raise some of the terrible things that have been happening in Zimbabwe.
	I suppose that I should conclude by responding to my hon. Friend's making yet another reference to Celtic by pointing out in the even-handed way in which we proceed in this House that it is worth noting that Glasgow Rangers are top of the Scottish league at present. Let none of us be accused of taking a biased view on these matters.

Mark Tami: Earlier this week, Corus at Shotton on Deeside announced the loss of a further 95 jobs at a plant that, at its height, employed more than 14,500 people. It will now employ just over 600 people. Further to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), will he allow time for an early debate on the future of the steel industry, which has been so badly mismanaged in recent years?

John Reid: I accept the importance of the point that my hon. Friend makes. After hearing the points that have been made, it occurs to me that the manufacturing industry might be a very useful and relevant topic for cross-cutting questions at some stage in the not-too-distant future.

Stephen McCabe: The experience of the past couple of weeks has clearly demonstrated that it is impossible for this House to transact its business successfully and keep to the hours imposed by the modernisation agenda. I have been told that a cross-party consensus is emerging that an acceptable compromise would be to retain the new Wednesday and Thursday hours, but restore the former Tuesday hours. Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing an early opportunity to test that consensus?
	On a lighter note, if my right hon. Friend is in a generous mood, will he also think about the opportunities afforded to Back Benchers to participate in business questions and see if there is any way of ensuring that we do not have to compete with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), whose act is so honed, colourful and entertaining that it now deserves a special slot of its own?

John Reid: On the second point, it is worth commending the contribution that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) makes, although I note that, not least due to the custodianship of the Chair by Mr. Speaker and yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, everyone who wanted to ask a question today has managed to get in. On the other matter that my hon. Friend raised, we will certainly pay a great deal of attention to that.

Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend turn his attention to a problem that affects many hon. Members? The Parliamentary Communications Directorate appears to have been allowed to establish a virtual monopoly in providing IT equipment to Members, and has now taken steps to withdraw a proper service from Members whose equipment it deems non-standard. The changes to the PCD network have resulted in any non-standard equipment being denied access to the network. Of course, what PCD means by non-standard is that it is not supplied by PCD. As my right hon. Friend knows, because I copied for him a letter that I sent to the Speaker's Office this morning, I wrote to PCD on 15 May asking why equipment supplied from elsewhere could not have access to the network. I assumed that the problem was the specification of the equipment. I received a response from Mr. Peter Beasley as follows:
	"This is not about the specification of the machine. It is about the difference between a centrally supplied machine and a machine purchased from an external source."
	I believe that that is an abuse and represents a huge cost to the public purse, as Members who have non-PCD-supplied equipment have been forced to upgrade it at hugely inflated cost, and pay for that from their incidental expenses allowance. I believe that that should be raised with the House administration.

John Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that to my attention. I accept what he is saying and know that he has brought the issue to Mr. Speaker's attention. Responsibility for the issue rests with the Information Committee and the information strategy board. If there were a change of policy, it would be considered in the normal way by the House of Commons Commission. However, I note that my hon. Friend is pursuing his own case with vigour, and I am sure that he has a great deal of understanding from other hon. Members.

Clergy Discipline Measure

Stuart Bell: I beg to move,
	That the Clergy Discipline Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
	It is a great pleasure to stand at the Dispatch Box with you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As right hon. and hon. Members who have served on the Ecclesiastical Committee will know, the Clergy Discipline Measure represents a major revision of the disciplinary procedures for Church of England clergy. As those who follow our proceedings intimately will know, it is the result of a long, careful consideration by the General Synod. Indeed, it comes to the House with the strong support of the General Synod of the Church of England, has been found expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee and has been approved in another place. I therefore commend it to the House.
	By way of background, current arrangements for clergy discipline are included in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, but its procedures—modelled in some ways on those of the criminal courts—have been found to be inflexible, expensive and slow. As a result, the 1963 Measure is rarely used, which has serious consequences for a number of areas. A significant number of complaints have been left unresolved, and discipline has tended to be exercised "informally" and on a voluntary basis. Consequently, resignation has been a frequent but not always appropriate outcome. The situation is unsatisfactory, not least for the clergy themselves. If they are to be respected and trusted, a manifestly credible, fair and transparent system for administering discipline is essential in those rare cases where they fall short of the standards expected of them.
	Accordingly, in 1994, the General Synod established a working party to review clergy discipline and the working of the ecclesiastical courts. There followed an extensive consultation and examination of good practice in other Anglican provinces, Christian Churches and professions in the United Kingdom. Legislative proposals were then developed and submitted to a long, careful process of revision in the Synod. The Measure resulting from that lengthy process commanded 100 per cent. support among those voting in the House of Bishops when it was finally approved in November 2000; 99 per cent. in the House of Laity; and 90 per cent. in the House of Clergy. Only 23 per cent. voted against final approval, with 200 members voting for it.
	In drawing up the Measure, the Church has sought to construct procedures that are fair to all parties; can be applied to all types of clergy, whatever their rank, experience or circumstances; are easily understood and flexible; and encourage as speedy a resolution as is consistent with the needs of justice. The Church firmly believes that the procedures in the Measure will meet all these requirements and enable genuine complaints to be dealt with effectively while excluding trivial, malicious or vexatious ones.
	By way of detail, disciplinary procedure under the Measure relates only to cases of misconduct and not to matters of worship or doctrine, and will be activated by a written complaint to the bishop. The exclusion of matters of worship or doctrine is considered significant by many hon. Members, as I can testify from the number of questions that I am asked at Church Commissioners questions. It is therefore worth repeating that matters of worship and doctrine are excluded from the Measure.
	Once received, the complaint will have to be examined by the diocesan registrar, who is a practising lawyer. The registrar will decide whether the complainant has a right to complain under the Measure; whether a disciplinary matter is involved; and whether the evidence supplied supports the complaint. On the basis of the registrar's assessment, the bishop will decide whether the complaint should be dismissed. If he decides not to dismiss it, a number of courses are open to him, including taking no further action, leaving the complaint on the record, seeking to promote conciliation or imposing a penalty with the cleric's consent. The remaining option is to refer the complaint for investigation, with a view to it being brought before a bishop's disciplinary tribunal if the president of tribunals—again, a lawyer—agrees that there is a case to answer.
	I think that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Measure bends over backwards to be as fair as is humanly possible to a cleric who is the subject of a complaint, and I will allude to that later when I touch upon article 6 of the European convention on human rights. There may be a referral to a bishop's disciplinary tribunal, but it should seldom be necessary to go so far. In the rare cases in which a complaint proceeds to a tribunal, the case will be heard by a tribunal of five members—two clergy, two lay people and a legally qualified chairman, all from provincial panels. Their decision will be by a majority, using the civil standard of proof. Appeals will continue to be dealt with in provincial courts of appeal.
	As for penalties, the Measure will give more flexibility than the 1963 Measure. The most severe penalty, for use in the most serious cases, is prohibition for life, which involves a permanent ban on exercising any clerical function. Other penalties include prohibition for a limited period; removal from office; revocation of a licence, requiring the cleric to refrain from offending behaviour; and, lastly, a formal warning. The Measure also provides for the bishop to be able to impose some of those penalties after certain proceedings in the criminal or divorce courts, whose findings are treated as conclusive by the Church, and it gives him a new power of suspension. A similar process is made available for complaints about bishops and archbishops.
	The Measure provides for the establishment of a new commission, the clergy discipline commission, to give general advice on the working of the Measure, to issue codes of practice and guidelines, and to maintain an archbishops' list—a confidential record of penalties imposed under the Measure and other matters.
	In drawing up these new procedures, the Church recognises that disciplinary proceedings can have very serious implications for clergy, even where the complaint is relatively minor. The Church has therefore been concerned to ensure that the rights of clergy are properly protected. To that end, the draft Measure was subject to detailed scrutiny by leading counsel specialising in human rights law. Counsel was satisfied that the requirements of article 6 of the European convention on human rights, conferring the right to a fair trial, were met by virtue of the rights of appeal to the provincial courts, but he identified ways in which the Measure, as originally drafted, might not have been fully consistent with human rights requirements. A number of changes were made as a result, and the Church is satisfied—or as satisfied as we reasonably can be—that the Measure complies fully with the Human Rights Act 1998.
	In that regard, the proper protection of the human rights of clergy was a matter that the Ecclesiastical Committee was entitled to, and did, consider very carefully. Accordingly, one of the principal issues that it addressed was that of the standard of proof where a complaint is heard by a tribunal. Church representatives explained to the Committee that the choice of the civil standard, as opposed to the criminal standard, which applies under the 1963 Measure, was arrived at after thorough consideration and much debate in the revision committee for the Measure and in the Synod as a whole.
	The civil standard is increasingly used in the disciplinary procedures of other professional bodies. In the Church's view, it strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of the wider Church and the public in not allowing misconduct by clergy to go unchallenged and the right of clergy to a fair hearing and a safe decision. The level of proof required will vary according to the seriousness of the allegation and the implications for the cleric. Thus, in the most serious cases the standard of proof required will be indistinguishable from the criminal standard—beyond reasonable doubt, rather than on the balance of probabilities. The Ecclesiastical Committee accepted that understanding of the position, and accordingly was content to accept that the adoption of the civil standard of proof was appropriate.
	The Ecclesiastical Committee addressed other matters in its examination of Church representatives and its report, but, in its judgment, none of them was such as to render the Measure inexpedient. We are grateful to members of the Committee—right hon. and Members and noble Lords alike—for making recommendations for consideration by the Church. We shall give those recommendations careful consideration in implementing the Measure once it passes into law, with the grace and leave of this House and Royal Assent. The Committee's decision, by a substantial majority, to find the Measure expedient, and the decision of the other place yesterday, reinforces my confidence that the Synod's proposals embodied in the Measure will commend themselves to the House.
	In conclusion, the Measure is the fruit of the Synod's long and careful consideration of the needs of all those who are interested in this important matter—not only clergy, their bishops and the lay people of the Church, but the wider public. The Church believes that it strikes a fair balance between their different interests and, in doing so, will give the Church a fair, credible and open system for dealing with disciplinary measures. I therefore commend the Measure to the House.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful for an opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. I should first apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who is unable to be here as he is under doctors' orders. I am sure that he would entirely endorse my point, which is that we are extremely grateful, not only for the clarity of the exposition by the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), but for the amazingly thorough work of the Ecclesiastical Committee; not being a member of the Committee, I can express my gratitude to it for that.
	I do not have a pecuniary interest in the matter, of course, but I have a personal interest in that my brother is a parish priest in the Church of England. I take a close interest in the way in which the Anglican Church operates at all levels, and I have in the past observed, at a distance, misconduct proceedings.
	The Measure is extremely timely, perhaps even overdue. Those of us who are practising members of the Church of England understand that this has long been an area of concern to many Church people, and perhaps to some outside it. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Measure establishes beyond peradventure that the civil standard of proof must be the basis of judgments made in future misconduct proceedings.
	I have had the benefit of reading the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, including the very thorough interrogation of representatives from the Synod. I also commend the work of the Synod, which is comprehensive, imaginative and sensitive. Indeed, if Members of Parliament had equally sensitive and humane guidance on the way in which we operate, perhaps we would be rather better at ensuring that we all work positively and constructively to the same agenda.
	When reading the documents, one occasionally wonders what is being got at. My heart rose when I saw that the report contained a section on fashion. Those of us who are practising members of the Church of England are often confused when we go to a church that we do not know as well as our own and witness very different fashions in clerical garb. When I came to read the detail, however, I found that it was nothing to do with that at all. That is unfortunate, because some guidance on fashion for incumbents would not go amiss. One sometimes gets the feeling that anything goes these days, and happy-clappy priests—perhaps they would not want to be called that—can look somewhat absurd.

Robert Key: What is wrong with happy-clappy priests?

Paul Tyler: There is nothing wrong with them, but I am sometimes disconcerted by their choice of garb. The hon. Gentleman is a very distinguished member of a very distinguished ecclesiastical family, and when he speaks he may wish to give some description of the different garb that can be used in church and the confusion that it can cause.

Peter Bottomley: It might assist the hon. Gentleman's argument if I say that the relevant passage is on page 44, and is entitled:
	"Fashion your life and the life of your household according to the way of Christ".

Paul Tyler: That phrase has an important origin. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was simply making the point that it is important to read the report in its proper context.
	At several points, the papers contain a considerable degree of distilled wisdom. They are a good read, extraordinarily, if rather long for those of us who have other preoccupations. I like, for example, the definition of good discipline as
	"not to hurt but to help".
	I wonder whether that might be a good motto to put above the door of our own Standards and Privileges Committee.
	We are indebted to all those who have been involved in the process, but that should not disguise the fact that this is not really a proper matter for Parliament any longer. Although I pay due attention to and respect the work of hon. Members, including several who are present, on the Measure, it is extraordinarily anomalous to subject only one Church among many to such scrutiny. The House can scarcely pretend to be made up predominantly of members of that Church—or perhaps any Christian Church—and should not therefore be given such a responsibility.
	Although I agree with our Committee's conclusions, and respect the work of the Synod, I look forward to the time when we can say that it is a matter not for us but for the Church and its effective self-discipline.

Robert Key: I warmly support the Clergy Discipline Measure and wish it well. I do not criticise the absence of many members of the Ecclesiastical Committee because their work is done when they present their report to the House. I shall revert to that point.
	The report is outstanding. The 218th report of the Ecclesiastical Committee should be much more widely available and I should like the Church of England to consider putting its evidence on its website. It should be freely available, although, at £12.50 the report is the best value for money that can currently be obtained from the Stationery Office. I warmly recommend it for wider reading in the Church of England.
	The supplementary material is especially valuable. The "Draft Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of Clergy" begins with a remarkable theological reflection by Francis Bridger. He points out that, whatever the law in the Church of England, it depends on a cluster of concepts about covenant, agape and virtue. He explains that in such a way that even a layman like me can understand it. At the end of his section, he states:
	"We have seen how the Church can no longer stand back from addressing the issue of what it means to act professionally in today's social climate . . . Above all, we are reminded that the foundational value for all Christian ethics is the uniquely Christian gift of agape. Without this we are but clanging cymbals, professional or otherwise."
	The report raises many issues, and I should like to explore some of them further with the Second Church Estates Commissioner because they have great implications about which I remain unclear after reading all the evidence, the explanatory notes and the Measure.
	Clause 24 deals with penalties and is the most serious part of the Measure. Prohibition and removal from office are the most serious penalties. Priests can be subject to rumours, vexatious complaints and gossip. Even if they are innocent and have gone through the new process, a priest and his or her family may find it impossible to continue their ministry in the parish because of the amount of gossip and malicious rumour.
	The report compares other professions with the clergy—I commend the Synod for going into such detail in its work over some nine years—and it compared tribunal procedures, including standard of proof, in other professions and occupations such as those of accountants, architects, barristers, dentists, doctors, Lloyd's insurers, nurses, midwives, health visitors, pharmacists, police, solicitors and veterinary surgeons. Synod reached conclusions that informed the decision on the way in which to proceed. My problem with that is that there are some matters that none of those professions has in common with clergy. The most obvious is housing.
	Low income demands some benefits, which have traditionally been offered in housing. Sometimes the freehold was part of the deal. Nowadays, approximately two out of five clergy are not beneficiaries of freehold. If somebody is prohibited or removed from office under the disciplinary procedures, what happens to the housing? What is the time scale for leaving the property? Is any assistance provided? We are not considering veterinary surgeons and solicitors but people on clerics' salaries. If we are not careful, we could impose a double penalty.
	What is the position on pensions? In some professions, people who lose their jobs for disciplinary reasons also lose the right to their pension. Is that the case under the Measure? I read the documents from cover to cover but I found no mention of that in the interrogation by the Ecclesiastical Committee or the notes.
	The Second Church Estates Commissioner referred to complaints about doctrine, ritual and ceremonial. I understand that the bishops made a sensible recommendation to put that on one side and deal with disciplinary matters first. However, I understand that another committee will sit and present doctrinal discipline proposals some time. What stage have we reached on that?
	I had always been content to trust the Ecclesiastical Committee to do its work and present us with reports. Last night, a debate on the Clergy Discipline Measure took place in another place. I was worried to read that several of their lordships questioned the efficacy of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Lord Brightman asked about its size and recommended that it should be cut from 30 to 15 Members of Parliament. Only five of the 15 Members of this House who are entitled to attend went to both evidence sessions that the Ecclesiastical Committee held. Lord Brightman said:
	"I have examined the reports of nine meetings of the committee. It is usually not possible to tell from the reports how many members of the committee voted on the expediency of a draft Measure. But I can say that in one case only 12 members attended and voted—12 out of 30."
	Lord Campbell of Alloway stated:
	"Everything the noble and learned Lord—
	Lord Brightman—
	"said was right. On our first meeting, 22 out of 30 members attended, but later it had to be adjourned because there was not a quorum of 10. At the second meeting 16 members out of 30 attended. At the end, a member who was leaving the room had to be recalled to establish a quorum for a vote."
	Lord Wallace of Saltaire said:
	"Perhaps I may tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that the committee, on what many of us thought was an important issue from the outset, failed to start on two occasions for lack of a quorum. It struggled for several months to manage a quorum and to get any notice whatever."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 May 2003; Vol. 648, c. 922–26.]
	The Church of England expects the Houses of Parliament to attend to the business of the Ecclesiastical Committee appropriately. Members of the Committee should ask themselves how serious it is. If it is not serious, that throws into doubt and confusion the relationship between the Church of England and Parliament. I deeply regret that because I do not share the views of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about the inappropriateness of a relationship between the Church of England, as the established Church, and Parliament.
	I have simply floated some questions. I do not know the answers but I was surprised when I read the report of the debate in the other place.
	Having said that, I look forward to hearing some answers from the Second Church Estates Commissioner, and I repeat that I wish the Measure well. I am absolutely confident—having checked with my bishop before I spoke that he, too, was content—that these provisions will rapidly pass into the everyday business of the Church of England.

Peter Bottomley: I speak without having consulted my bishop, but I was with him in St. Paul's cathedral at the great concert service for the Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy. I suspect that a partial answer to one of the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is that, when clerics find that they cannot support themselves—whether through some fault of their own or not—the range of charities associated with the Church will provide support if it has not been possible to get it directly from the Church Commissioners or from the diocese.
	I should declare an interest, in that I have just been elected a trustee of a trust established in 1695 by Dr. Busby for the support of the clergy—although the first thing that he did with the trust was to spend £10 on a dinner for the trustees. Most of the other money is spent in a way that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury would support.
	I recently went to the Elizabethan exhibition at the National Maritime museum, which served as a proper reminder that, when Queen Elizabeth I came to the throne, she had to unite the country in the Church of England, and that, much to the disappointment of both the Catholics and the Presbyterians, she established the middle way. I suspect that one of the best ways of maintaining the middle way, and one of the best ways for the Church of England within Christianity to serve at least the nation of England, is for the Church to remain established. I side with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury on that; I am not taken with what I hope are the short-term modern ideas put forward so elegantly by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
	The Ecclesiastical Committee works in mysterious ways, and much of that work is done in public. It is possible to read that two of the noble Lords whom my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury quoted were in dissent in finding the Measure expedient. I should like to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, for helping us to have a fair go at all the points that were on our minds and to come to a conclusion. Those who argue about the difficulty of achieving a quorum might like to consider the attractiveness of the way in which they speak and of the points that they raise. I am not saying that people left the room to avoid hearing them at length, but it is certainly true that, if these meetings took the amount of time that they properly deserved, we could still cover the ground and come to proper conclusions.
	I am perfectly prepared to find myself in a minority on occasions, but I still think that I am right. Measures that I think should get through without difficulty sometimes fail to do so, but I believe that the process is important. I hope that the House will have the opportunity to debate synodical government at some point; it is about 40 years since the last report led to certain changes being made. I remind the House that the reason that we have this debate on the Measure, and this debate alone, is that we have got rid of the Second Reading, Committee and Report stages relating to changes in the laws of the Church of England. I believe that that was progress, although it has led to some difficulties. Anyone who thinks that the Synod and those who serve it do not take this matter seriously has not read the report and the papers presented to us.
	I hope that there will be a way of making available to every parish in the country two of the items referred to by the hon. Member for North Cornwall and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. The reflections by the Reverend Dr. Francis Bridger are useful, and are to be found on page 35 of the report. They are deep but valuable. The parts that I believe should go to every parish are parts I and II. The five pages covered by part I—Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy—are basically the charge to the clergy.
	Paragraph 12 in part II appears on page 45, and deals with the support and care of the clergy. The question asked at the installation of every incumbent is:
	"Will you uphold them in their ministry?"
	The answer deserves the attention of us all, and I completely agree with it. It states:
	"The officers of the parish, especially the churchwardens, should ensure that their clergy have:
	Sufficient time off for rest, recreation and proper holidays.
	An annual opportunity to make a retreat of at least a week's duration.
	Adequate administrative assistance.
	Reimbursement in full of ministerial expenses.
	Appropriate release for extra parochial ministry.
	Encouragement for ministry to the whole parish not just the gathered congregation."
	We all ought to be aware of those words, especially when dealing with disciplinary measures involving allegations against a member of the clergy that may be right or wrong.
	I would ask those ministers who might read this debate—I am glad to see some ministers here—to remember that the Church of England has the advantage of article 26, which says that what a minister does is still all right, even if the minister himself is no good. I pay tribute to those in ministry, both in the Church and the Government.

Stuart Bell: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the points that have been made in this debate, and I welcome the very constructive fashion in which they have been made. May I also echo the words of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? I, too, am sorry that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is not here today. I am aware that he is indisposed and I wish him a quick recovery.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall made the point that the Measure was overdue. Its gestation took six years; it also took a little longer because the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force and had to be taken into consideration. I agree with him that the world moves on very quickly, and something that takes six years to get through the system can find itself out of date by the time it reaches the House. I am sure that we shall take that point on board. He was kind enough, however, to commend the Synod for the work and preparation that it has done, and I will pass on his remarks when the Synod meets again in July.
	With the House's permission, I shall avoid any debate on happy-clappy ministers. I often feel that we have happy-clappy Members of Parliament at Question Time here in the House, although they have not given me any difficulty in this Parliament. I would not, however, want to get involved in any debate on happy-clappy ministers or on fashion.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall raised the significant point—as he has done before—about the disestablishment of the Church. I have made the point to the new archbishop that we ought not to be talking about disestablishment; some important points were made on that, to which I shall come in a moment. The hon. Gentleman might, however, like to talk about disengagement, and about how we might disengage some of the aspects of the Church from the state. The Church should get the best out of its relationship with the state, and the state should get the best out of its relationship with the Church. How we achieve that is something that we ought to look at.
	The Measure before us today comes from powers emanating from the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919. That Act has not quite been in force for 100 years, but we have nevertheless been acting under its provisions for an awfully long time. I suspect that one of the problems involved is political or parliamentary inertia. There is a tremendous inbuilt inertia when it comes to considering these matters, but we ought to remember that the clergy play a very distinguished and important part in their parishes with their parishioners, and that those parishioners are also our constituents. We therefore have a strong interest in maintaining that relationship.
	I welcome the remarks made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), as I always do. He mentioned the lack of members of the Ecclesiastical Committee here today, but I am happy to say that some members of the Committee are present on the Labour and Conservative Benches. In relation to some members of the Committee, however, I would say that absence makes the heart grow fonder. I sometimes think that our proceedings move more quickly and progressively when some of those members are not here.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the website report. It is certainly true that, in the age of the internet and of mass information, it would be appropriate for these proceedings to be on the website. My own website has just celebrated its half-millionth hit. How half a million people can check into my website over a period of just a few months is astonishing to me; what they do there I have no idea. Nevertheless, websites are an important source of information and I think that the hon. Gentleman has put forward a sound idea. He talked about a cluster of concepts; I often think, when dealing with issues concerning the Church and the state, that I am dealing with a confusion of concepts, rather than a cluster. The hon. Gentleman's point is certainly well made, however.
	I outlined a range of penalties. The hon. Gentleman asked how malicious gossip could be dealt with. That is of course a difficult issue, but we have found ways of dealing with it different from those adopted in Massachusetts in 1692, when ladies were taken out and burnt at the stake as witches. We have progressed a bit since then.
	Housing is of course important to a clergyman. His vocation and his vicarage necessitate a dwelling. The Church must be very liberal, sensitive and generous when dealing with housing for priests who may be in difficulty.
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning pensions. The simple answer to his question is that under the rules of the two Church of England pension schemes, clergy who are subject to disciplinary proceedings will not lose any accrued pension entitlement. Should they have to leave the stipendiary ministry as a result of disciplinary action, they will be treated in the same way as others who choose to leave before retirement age. Their existing pension rights will be preserved, but no further entitlement will accrue, and their pensions will not become payable until they reach retirement age.
	As the hon. Gentleman may know, doctrine, ritual and ceremony are still being dealt with under the 1963 Measure, and that will continue. The working party that he mentioned, consisting of bishops, clergy and laity, was established to examine the matter in detail, and will report to the House of Bishops early next year. In due course the House will report to the Synod on its proposals, modelled largely on the new Measure establishing disciplinary procedures to deal with complaints relating to doctrine, ritual and ceremony. The Measure that will enact those proposals will then be presented for synodical approval.
	When I think of all the work that lies ahead, I am reminded of the words of St Augustine, who said "Make me pure, but not yet, O Lord". I hope that it will be some time before we find ourselves in the Ecclesiastical Committee considering those Measures.
	A point was made about the size of the Committee. When I read the report of proceedings in the other place, I noted that one Member had complained that it was too large with 15 members from the Lords and 15 from the Commons, while the other had complained about the presence of the Second Church Estates Commissioner and a Member of Parliament who was also a member of the Synod. In fact the Second Church Estates Commissioner and the member of the Synod are two people who are guaranteed to be present if no one else is, so I thought there was a bit of a contradiction there. Nevertheless, attendance and the Committee's composition are a constant source of worry for the Commissioner. It is extraordinarily difficult to find volunteers for membership, and many Members of both Houses are more or less press-ganged into it. That does tend to impinge on attendance.

David Drew: I apologise for missing my hon. Friend's earlier remarks, but may I say something about size, composition and attendance? I must confess that I missed the sittings, but I think that part of the problem is that those who become members of the Committee are not entirely sure of its powers and what it is likely to do. As a member myself, I would welcome an opportunity to discuss that informally.

Stuart Bell: As he said, my hon. Friend is a member of the Committee, and he has taken a strong interest in our proceedings. He anticipates a point that I intended to make. We have a busy House, a busy Committee structure and a busy timetable, and it is not always easy for Members to attend sittings of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The change in the sitting hours of the House has had a further impact on attendance. My hon. Friend's point about how we inform new Committee members is well made, and I will certainly return to it. I have already discussed the point made by the hon. Member for Salisbury about the Church of England and Parliament.
	The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), who was on the Committee, made some pertinent points. He spoke of the role of the parish priest, and the vocation. It is indeed a vocation, and parish priests are therefore in a rather different category from those in other professions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned when something has happened that must be dealt with.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to Elizabeth I and the middle way. I had visions of the middle way and the third way. Four hundred years later, here we are again, inventing a new way of looking at politics. Incidentally, 30 years ago General de Gaulle also had a third way in French politics—but in the context of the established and the disestablished Church, as I have said, disengagement strikes me as a way forward for both.
	I think I have covered the question of the Committee's size. The questions of synodical debate and a debate on synodical government, however, are extremely important to both the Church and the House. The hon. Gentleman made a significant point about our proceedings today, namely that there was no Committee stage and indeed no Second Reading for Church legislation. There is no Department to take over such business. The House of Commons represents the final safeguard of the rights of our constituents who are also parishioners. Today's proceedings are therefore very important, and I am glad that there is a sense of unanimity here.
	The hon. Gentleman also spoke of connecting parishes with the internet. It is certainly a wonderful source of information, even for our parishes.
	I think I have covered all the points made by Members. I thank them all again for their constructive participation. I thank members of the Ecclesiastical Committee, the General Synod, and the representatives of Church House who brief me so well. I commend the Measure.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	 That the Clergy Discipline Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Municipal Waste Recycling Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Municipal Waste Recycling Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.
	The motion concerns the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). On Second Reading the Government said they were content to allow the Bill to proceed to its Committee stage, and that was agreed by the House. The Government also said on Second Reading that a number of amendments would have to be made if the Bill was to receive Government support.
	Our first problem is the requirement for a strategy to be prepared within six months to achieve a 50 per cent. municipal waste recycling rate by 2010. We are not sure that that would fit with the rather more comprehensive waste strategy 2000, which involved the whole waste stream rather than just municipal waste and addressed the entire hierarchy rather than just recycling. We think it important to focus on the action needed from central Government and local authorities to meet our published targets and to make progress with the 2000 strategy rather than publishing a further strategy so soon after the production of the others.
	Speaking just for England, we considered the issues of targets in our response to the strategy unit's report "Waste not want not". The unit made a number of suggestions for new strategy targets, although they were not as ambitious as the target of 50 per cent. by 2010 proposed in the Bill. We concluded that it would not be fair to change the statutory recycling and composting targets that the Government had set for 2005–06 at this stage. We recognise, however, that national recycling rates higher than the current targets are both possible and clearly desirable. We have said that in 2004 we will review the national recycling targets in the light of progress made by local authorities in meeting their 2003–04 targets. We are not currently convinced, however, that the achievement of a 50 per cent. rate by 2010 is practicable. That rate is far beyond the current target of 30 per cent. by 2010 as set in "Waste Strategy 2000", and the target of 35 per cent. by 2010 as recommended by the strategy unit.
	On other parts of the Bill, we intend that the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill should incorporate the requirement for municipal waste management strategies in two-tier areas. These strategies will not be required for "excellent" authorities or for those that can show that they are on track to meet their targets. We intend to table an amendment to this effect on Report. The Waste and Emissions Trading Bill already incorporates the power of direction for a waste disposal authority to require a waste collection authority to deliver waste separated, where that is necessary to meet its requirements under the landfill allowance scheme or recycling targets.
	On the motion and the matter of cost, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently doing some financial modelling to forecast the cost of providing such services and of meeting increasing levels of recycling within the UK, although this is not ready yet. The calculation is not straightforward; the modelling is very complex, involving a number of different scenarios. We need to be very clear about the assumptions and fears that we feed into the model; however, we are certainly working on this.
	So I think that we can agree that sustainable waste management is a vital policy, and that it will be useful to discuss this Bill further in Committee. I commend the motion to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Adjournment (Whitsun)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House, at its rising on Thursday 22nd May, do adjourn until Tuesday 3rd June.—[Joan Ryan.]

Tom Cox: I wish to speak on Cyprus. I am the chairperson of the UK Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's all-party group on Cyprus, which is made up of Members from all of the major parties in this House. Since the brutal military invasion of the Republic of Cyprus by the Turkish army in 1974, we in this House have, over the years, had many debates on, asked many questions about, and tabled many early-day motions on Cyprus. Our group has always made it very clear that we are just as concerned with the rights and security of Turkish Cypriots as we are with those of Greek Cypriots.
	In the years since 1974, there have been many attempts to find an honourable solution to the division of the island of Cyprus. It became clear during that time that the lack of progress was due to the attitude of Mr. Denktash, the leader of the Turkish Cypriots, and his friends and supporters in Turkey. Since 1974, he has done nothing to enable the island of Cyprus—a country that is a member of the Commonwealth, and for which the United Kingdom is one of the guarantor powers—to work together with Greek and Turkish Cypriots to develop their country. Some years ago, he declared the so-called independent state of northern Cyprus. To this day, only one country in the world recognises it: Turkey. The United Nations, the European Union, the Council of Europe and the United Kingdom all refuse to recognise it. So, sadly, we have made no progress on a settlement.
	Many Members of this House have fully supported the application of Cyprus for membership of the European Union, and we were delighted when it became clear that it will become a member next year. As those discussions on membership were taking place, the then President of the Republic of Cyprus, President Clerides, asked Mr. Denktash on several occasions to join him to discuss Cyprus's future membership of the EU. He always—always—refused, saying that only if President Clerides recognised his independent state of northern Cyprus would he take part in such discussions.
	When it became clear that Cyprus would join the European Union, the Secretary-General of the United Nations sought a settlement to the division, so that next year, when the Republic of Cyprus becomes an EU member state, the whole of Cyprus would join at the same time. I welcome and support the attempts of the Secretary-General to find a solution, but, again, we got nowhere, and again for the same reason: Mr. Denktash.
	The voice of the people of northern Cyprus has now changed greatly, however. Turkish Cypriots went on to the streets in their thousands, calling for an end to the division of the island and speaking of the wish of the people of northern Cyprus, whatever Mr. Denktash says, to be part of the Cyprus that joins the European Union next year. The people of northern Cyprus, after years of silence, have clearly asked for an end to the isolation that, sadly, they experience from the world.
	The British Government are major players in the affairs of Cyprus. We controlled it for many years, and two of the most important military bases in the British military establishment are still on the island. I have already mentioned the role that Turkey has played and continues to play in northern Cyprus. We also know that Turkey wants nothing more than to become a member of the European Union. This Government support and encourage that wish, but what I and other Members want to know is: just what do my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary say to the Turkish Government about Cyprus and an end to the division of the island? No one can say that Turkey has no influence in northern Cyprus; thousands of Turkish troops are there, and it helps the Denktash regime financially. So we say clearly to Turkey: use your influence in northern Cyprus and make it clear to Mr. Denktash that he must now enter into meaningful discussions with the UN Secretary-General to end this long-running tragedy of the division of Cyprus.
	The people of northern Cyprus have clearly said what they want to happen. For the first time since 1974, we have witnessed invasion: people crossing the divide between northern and southern Cyprus to visit the areas in which they used to live and their former homes, and to meet their former friends. So the attitude and wish of Cyprus is now very clear. The people have spoken, be they Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots. They say, "We want to live together, work together and prosper together."
	So where does the United Kingdom stand in terms of this very clear wish? Do we support these people, and if so what are we doing to ensure that such developments continue and lead to a united Cyprus, thereby ending the division of the island and the suffering of its people, among whom, sadly, none have suffered more in recent years than the Turkish Cypriot community? If that is our policy, what are we doing to pursue it? That is the question to which many Members of this House want an answer, and it is why I have spoken today.

Paul Tyler: Unusually, I am not so grateful for being called earlier because I would have liked to respond to several later contributions. As is often said in this place, one has to take one's chance when one can.
	First, I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on a subject that he has revisited in several recess Adjournment debates. I particularly endorse his point about people power in Cyprus. In a debate earlier this week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made specific reference to the position in Cyprus. The hon. Member for Tooting is right that we in this country must endorse the demands, requests and pressure from the people of Cyprus to resolve their difficulties once and for all. I happened to be an MP in 1974—a long time ago—when the division of Cyprus took place. I recall the tragic circumstances, which were terrible for the people of Cyprus, and for all the people who love that benighted island when the tragedy continued. I entirely endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman said, and I hope that the Minister will take his points seriously and communicate them to the Foreign Office.
	The Minister has heard reference made on several recent occasions to the little booklet produced by the Parliament First group—a distinguished group, apart from myself, of course. "Parliament's Last Chance" has a distinguished authorship, including Members of all political parties. I hope that the Minister has, having been encouraged to do so, now read it. If not, next week would allow him an admirable opportunity to do so. Other hon. Members, who may believe that we live in a parliamentary democracy and—to put it in simple terms—that Parliament's power to hold the Executive to account has decreased, is decreasing and ought to be enhanced, should also find useful material in the booklet.
	I should like to draw the attention of the Minister—and, through him, that of the Leader of the House—to several issues in the document, but before I do so I refer him back to the debate of 29 October 2002, to preceding debates and, indeed, to previous weekly encounters with the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on those very issues. They should be of concern to every Member of Parliament, whether they sit on the Front or the Back Benches, and to all who believe that our democracy relies on effective scrutiny of Government legislation and of the Government's Executive actions.
	The problems have certainly not developed suddenly—as hon. Members know, I have been in and out of this place for quite a long period—but as a product of a war of attrition between No. 10, Whitehall and the House. The resignation statement of the former Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), underlined the fact that the problems did not suddenly occur in the year 2003, but progressively—or, I should say, regressively—over several years.
	"Parliament's Last Chance" would also be of interest to people outside Parliament who take our proceedings seriously. If I had to concentrate on one core issue, it would be the management of Parliament's time. All too often, the management of our time is not only in the hands of the Executive of the day, but is organised to the convenience of that Executive. I am not just complaining about the speedy passage of the business immediately preceding this debate, which meant that my soup is still sitting in the Members' Tea Room getting cold. It is much more serious than that. If Parliament is to reassert its authority over the Executive, we must be able to reassert our power over our own timetable.
	Almost all the elected legislative assemblies in the west and other parts of the world—whether they have mirrored our system or adopted a different one—enable the individual members and the parties collectively to decide the priorities for the business. The management of business is not left to the Government, but is recognised as an important power for the elected assembly. That is why "Parliament's Last Chance" emphasises the need for some sort of business committee in Parliament. It is also the reason why the Scottish Parliament has set up, under the chairmanship of a presiding officer, a group of people from all parts of its elected assembly, which can then decide on the priorities for its business.
	Furthermore, the motion proposed by the right hon. Member for Livingston on 29 October last year entailed a move towards some form of collective consensus building on how the business of the House should be conducted. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) knows, it was relatively limited in recommending proper consultation, but as he and I both know, that exercise now seems to have ground to a halt. Why? Because it undermines the hegemony of the Government Whips.
	Government Members should take a greater interest in why the House decision in favour of cross-party consultation has lapsed. As I mentioned to the Leader of the House at business questions this afternoon, we should focus on what needs to be done at this stage of the Session. If the Government ask the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and me to carry over some business—I have calculated that we have only a further 10 weeks left for this Session's legislative programme—without proper consultation on the priorities of all the legislation, they might receive a dusty answer. I stress that the House had decided that such consultation should take place. It was not merely an Opposition motion or an afterthought. The motion came before the House and was approved by it, but the process has now stalled. In fairness to the Leader of the House, he responded positively to my point in business questions earlier today, but I hope that we can make further progress.
	The booklet includes several other extremely important proposals. None of its authors believes that it is the last word on the subject—far from it—but we believe that all hon. Members, particularly Labour Back Benchers, not only have a right and responsibility to take the proposals seriously, but may have their final opportunity in the coming months to reassert their rights on behalf of their constituents to ensure that Parliament works more effectively.
	The right hon. Member for Livingston used to say on many occasions—I hope that I am paraphrasing him accurately—that good government depends on good scrutiny by Parliament. Many of us feel that the position is deteriorating—though, as I said, not suddenly. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would be the first to admit that he and his colleagues were far from perfect and introduced legislation that was inadequately thought through on many occasions. When we were given an opportunity to improve it, we often found ourselves up against the guillotine.
	Saying that two wrongs do not make a right does not improve the position, however. It has not been right for some time and it continues to be a blot on the reputation of Parliament. One of the reasons why members of the public do not hold Parliament in higher esteem is that we do not look as if we are in control of our business. We do not look as if we are giving proper scrutiny to issues that require it, and we do not look from outside as if we are doing our job properly.
	It is important to recognise that individual MPs of all parties are highly respected in their own constituencies. I have no doubt that many of the usual suspects are in their places on both sides of the House today and they will raise issues that they feel are important to them. The polls show that individual Members of all parties—I shall not embarrass anyone by mentioning names—are highly respected in the local community. However, when the public are asked how they perceive Parliament as an institution, and whether Members of Parliament are doing their job properly collectively, we tumble down the respect league. We even sometimes come below journalists, and that is a deplorable situation.

David Kidney: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that the public may be more accurate in their assessment of their constituency MP because they have more personal knowledge of his or her qualities and work, whereas their view of what happens in this place is filtered through, for example, the media's reporting of us?

Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman is a colleague on the Modernisation Committee and he has given me an opportunity to polish what I laughingly call my peroration. In the Committee, we are trying to find ways to communicate better, not only through the media but directly, using the modern forms of communication that technology has now afforded to us. In that way, we could better communicate to the outside world what Parliament is doing. However, we should remember that the message is dependent on the quality of the work that we do, not on the messenger that we use. We can continue to improve the ways in which we engage with the public until the cows come home, but unless we do a better job, the public's perception—whether through the media or through direct contact at constituency level and the internet—will not improve. The perception has to be that the substance of what we are doing has improved.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I wish all colleagues an enjoyable Whitsun recess. Everyone will be welcome in Cornwall, which will—of course—be very sunny next week.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back Benchers' speeches for the rest of the debate.

Rudi Vis: Cyprus is an important issue, and I too shall address it in my remarks. It has been discussed on many occasions and for various reasons, and we have already heard about it today. It was often discussed after the Turkish invasion of the island in 1974, and numerous UN resolutions have been passed since then. All opposed the Turkish invasion, but none of the resolutions was successful.
	The leader of the Turkish Cypriots for the whole time has been Mr. Denktash, whose name is often associated with intransigence. The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, visited Cyprus in late February this year, in yet another attempt to settle the Cyprus dispute. The UN plan, which has been revised several times, was put before the parties and an invitation was issued to the leaders to visit The Hague on 10 March to hear the latest version of Mr. Annan's settlement plan, and to tell him whether it would be put to a popular referendum in both the Republic and the occupied territory of Cyprus.
	In the event, Mr. Denktash said no on 10 March, a failure to comply that was subsequently accepted by the UN Security Council. I was deeply disappointed by the UN plan and, for once, Mr. Denktash did us a favour by rejecting it. The matter is further complicated by the fact that Cyprus will formally join the EU in May 2004. A divided Cyprus would complicate that enormously. The Turks also want to join the EU and they have argued that there can be no solution for Cyprus unless the EU offers them an early and realistic date for formal negotiations to commence on EU membership.
	At the same time, presidential elections were held in Cyprus, with the first vote on 16 February. In the event, a second vote was unnecessary, because Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos won with 51.51 per cent. in the first ballot. That brought to an abrupt end the 10-year rule of the defeated President, Mr. Clerides. I have always maintained that Mr. Clerides felt that he had to concede too much to the demands of the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Denktash. I am therefore very pleased with the presidency of Mr. Papadopoulos. Interestingly, he was backed by his own party, DIKO, but also by the Socialist party, AKEL, which is the largest political party in Cyprus. AKEL gained some 34 per cent. in last year's elections and is led by the president of the House of Representatives, Mr. Demetris Christofias. Mr. Papadopoulos was also supported by the Social Democratic Movement, KISOS, and the Ecologists. That widespread political support is reflected in the composition of the Council of Ministers that took office on 3 March. It appears to be the best Government of Cyprus for a long time.
	It is my understanding that the President has now informed the UN Secretary-General's special adviser on Cyprus, Mr. de Soto, that the proposed UN deal is dead. Mr. Papadopoulos has undertaken to present a new deal and has pledged to
	"work and strive for a workable and viable solution."
	I wish him every success and I believe that he can do it. That belief is based on recent developments in Cyprus and the world at large. Those include the facts that Turkish Cypriots are increasingly angry with their intransigent leader, Mr. Denktash; that Turkey has lost much influence, especially with the United States; that Turkey is less important strategically since the fall of Saddam Hussein; that Turkey is now much more focused on joining the EU, and a divided Cyprus is an obstacle to that, rather than a negotiating advantage; and that President Papadopoulos leads a strong and determined Government who will come up with a lasting solution.
	Recently, Mr. Denktash opened the border so that Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and other Cypriots can visit long-lost homes and villages, which they have been prevented from doing for nearly 29 years. I fully understand all the emotions associated with those visits. They also show that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots have more in common than what divides them. However, a lasting settlement should not be decided on emotions. I have yet to be persuaded that I should trust Mr. Denktash, or the Turkish Government, on these matters. Furthermore, one should not have to pay to visit one's own home and village.
	It is important that the Government of Cyprus and the people develop and propose a lasting solution. However, it is for the UK Government and, in particular, the Foreign Office, who have drifted lately towards a more Turkish-designed solution for Cyprus, to accept the changed circumstances and fully to appreciate the efforts made by President Papadopoulos.

Peter Viggers: On previous occasions, I have used the Adjournment debate to raise the issue of the Royal hospital, Haslar and I am delighted to inform colleagues who follow the fortunes of that important and grand hospital that—after several Adjournment debates since 1998—it is alive and well, and living in Gosport. The local hospitals trust is studying ways of using the accident treatment centre to a greater extent. I also see, from a recent Government publication entitled, "Keeping the NHS Local—A New Direction of Travel" that a model will be studied in which
	"unselected patients receive rapid assessment in a local unit, with doctors from the nearest acute hospital site advising remotely via a telemedicine link."
	That would mean that the accident treatment centre at Haslar could be used more widely than at present, and the plan is to expand it by diverting some 4,000 extra patients a year through it. Whether it is the Adjournment debates alone, or common sense that has prevailed, I am delighted to inform colleagues that Haslar is well and we intend that it should remain that way.
	Today, I wish to raise a different issue—the Government's immigration policy and political asylum system, which are generally recognised to be in a state of collapse. From small beginnings, about 80,000 people sought to come to this country in 2000. In 2002, the number of people trying to come to this country rose to 110,000, of whom the Home Office decided that about 10,000 were entitled to political asylum as they were genuinely in fear of persecution in their original place of residence. Of the remaining 100,000, about 20,000 were given exceptional leave to remain in the short term. That means that about 30 per cent. of all applicants remained here by permission. About 13,000 applicants left—or said that they were going to leave—and the remainder, who were not given leave to remain, have remained here anyway.
	The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration told the House three weeks ago:
	"Because refugees have to enter countries illegally, one of the perverse effects of the current system is that it has fuelled the rise of the criminal gangs that smuggle people for profit."—[Official Report, 28 April 2003; Vol. 404, c. 1.]
	We really cannot go an as we are. We need a different system, and the Conservative party has proposed one. We expected it to be greeted with some surprise, as it is very dramatic, but it seems to have been received quite quietly. The plan is to screen applicants for political asylum not in this country, but outside it. That is the system in Australia, and it has achieved some success. Indeed, this Government are considering screening political asylum applicants outside the country. The Home Secretary has suggested to his colleagues in Europe the possibility that we might screen political asylum seekers in Albania, Bulgaria and Romania. If the Government decide to follow the Conservative line and screen people outside the UK, we Conservatives will not criticise them for stealing our policies. On this occasion, we will congratulate them.
	As matters stand, however, we have to live with the existing system. The Government have proposed some possible locations for accommodation centres, where asylum seekers would be housed on a short-term basis. I say "short term" because it appears that, within two months of being sent to an accommodation centre, asylum seekers will be told whether they are being given permission to stay here, or exceptional leave to remain.
	Of course, asylum seekers who are turned down can appeal. That process can take another six months, so the prospect is that people will remain in these accommodation centres for quite some time. Two such centres, at Newton and Bicester, are currently under consideration. In February, the Government announced that they were contemplating establishing a third centre at Daedalus, a former Royal Navy air station at Lee-on-the-Solent, which was closed some years ago.
	The proposal was greeted by people in the area with incredulity, dismay and anger. The Daedalus action group rapidly formed, and I pay tribute to the enormous amount of work that it has done. It has raised a petition signed by 32,000 people, and organised meetings—I addressed a meeting of 8,500 people on the cliff tops at Lee-on-the-Solent—and a march through the town.
	When the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration telephoned me to tell me of her decision to contemplate Lee-on-the-Solent as a centre for asylum seekers, she said, "Come on, Peter, 400 hundred young men"—which is what the proposal might entail—"is less than 1 per cent. of the population of your constituency." However, that is not the right way to look at the matter. Daedalus's main gates are located next to a very quiet part of the residential area of Lee-on-the-Solent, which is a quiet and attractive seaside location, with a population of just over 6,000 people. The 400 young men proposed to be located at the Daedalus site would account for about 6 per cent. of the Lee-on-the-Solent population. They would have a devastating effect on an area that is very popular with retired people, and which is exceptionally quiet.
	The organisations that support refugees' interests, such as the Refugee Council and the Immigration Advisory Service, all say that applicants for political asylum in this country—would-be immigrants—should be located in an urban environment, near to other people from their own countries. In both senses, Lee-on-the-Solent is supremely unsuitable. It is definitely not an urban environment, being very quiet, and it has no immigrant population at all. Very few people from the main immigrant countries—Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Turkey, and the former Republic of Yugoslavia—even visit the area.
	If—heaven forbid—the proposal were to go ahead, the burden on local services would be enormous. People living in the accommodation centre would be given primary medical care, but of course would rely on local hospital services for secondary and tertiary care. There is already a strain on doctors' services, and there are no dentists taking new NHS patients in the Gosport constituency. There are 3,000 people waiting on the Fareham and Gosport housing list, and there are 200 homeless people in the area. The burden on schools would be intolerable. It is no surprise that the residents of Lee-on-the-Solent, as well as the Gosport and Fareham councils and Hampshire county council, have committed themselves to opposing the proposition absolutely and totally. It must not proceed.

Valerie Davey: I want to put on record my concern, which is shared by many of my constituents, about the future of the UN. This afternoon—perhaps even as we speak—the UN Security Council is considering the latest resolution on Iraq, proposed by the US and the UK. The resolution would lift sanctions, endorse the coalition's right to remain in Iraq until a new Government are formed and allow some UN involvement in Iraq. The resolution also provides for the possible return of weapons inspectors at some time in the future.
	It appears that acceptance of the resolution is signed and sealed. All that we need to know now is how Syria will vote, but there has been great disquiet and uncertainly in the lead up to today's meeting. How will the permanent members of the Security Council vote, and what is their motive? Has a genuine and pragmatic compromise been reached? Is self-interest over future oil and reconstruction contracts a factor, or is there—somewhere—a genuine concern over the future of the UN?
	For many of us, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the ineffectiveness of UN action in Rwanda was a reason to draw breath and ask what the UN's real role should be. What should it be doing, and who should transform it into a modern body for the 21st century?
	We have been experiencing a growing number of conflicts. They have not been of the type that the UN was set up to deal with—namely, the invasion of one country by another. They have been internal conflicts, for which the UN has no obvious remit, as was the case in Rwanda.
	Where do we go from here? How do we ensure that, in future, there will be humanitarian intervention in a sovereign state? That is the jargon for the central question: how do we ensure that the human rights of individuals, and the humanitarian concerns on their behalf, are upheld when law and order appears to break down or when a country's Government have no interest in the vast majority of their citizens?
	The debate is not new. It is an ongoing concern in the present context, following the Iraq war. I believe that the UN has been abused by people who have sought to use it to support their own arguments. In this changing world, the UN is now unable, in many situations, to intervene. It appears that no one is taking the time to do the boring, time-consuming and detailed work involved in developing the UN charter for the 21st century.
	I shall refer to three statements that have contributed to that debate in different ways over the past few years. The first is an article from the Financial Times of 4 September 2000, jointly written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). It was that Lib-Lab collaboration that got publicity rather than the content of a very important statement.
	The article noted:
	"Wars in the past decade have claimed an estimated 5 million lives. More than at any time, these wars have violated civilians, not borders".
	In other words, they were internal disputes. To cope with the problem, the authors said that there should be a clear framework for intervention and that
	"humanitarian intervention could in itself serve as a deterrent to future conflicts".
	In recent months, we have all asked: why, why, why did the UN not have the power to intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why does it not have the power to intervene in Burma or Zimbabwe? Why do peacekeeping forces have no role in those countries? The sovereign state argument holds sway, as we all know, but we need an international grouping—the United Nations—to try to work out appropriate protocols. The article discussed the enlargement of the Security Council to comprise 10 permanent members, including Germany, Japan and one each from Africa, Asia and Latin America.
	The second document is entitled, "The Responsibility to Protect" and was published in December 2001. It is the report of a commission, established by the Canadian Government, of highly capable international leaders who set out some of the principles for such protocols. The foreword included a compelling plea from the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, for the international community to try to find a new consensus on humanitarian issues. He said that
	"if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to Rwanda, to a Srebenica—to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every aspect of our common humanity?"
	We need to revisit the ideas set out in that document.
	The third document is a speech sent to me by the Polish consulate in Bristol. It was made at the UN by the Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs, setting out Poland's concerns about the need for more UN work to establish human rights. The Minister called for a "group of sages", people from different parts of the world, to get together to reinforce a new UN mandate—not a challenge to the UN charter, but a mandate for humanitarian intervention.
	There are many such documents. When I inquired at the Library, I was issued with a tome. The work that I have described is not eye-catching; it is not immediately inspiring, yet its outcome could be of supreme importance to the world. On behalf of many of my constituents, I ask the Government to ensure that we take a full part, as a member of the UN, in furthering the debate and implementing its conclusions. Recently, I have been concerned that we seemed to be distancing ourselves from the UN and to be talking about it as though we were not a member. We need to take on our responsibilities.
	I have not sought the permission of my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston for the proposal that I am about to make, but as he cut his teeth on the modernisation of this place he might be a good candidate for membership of the Polish Minister's group of sages. My right hon. Friend could take up another modernising role in the UN.
	Will the Department for Education and Skills ensure that, in the new citizenship education programme, the work and role of the UN is at the fore? Like other colleagues, I can remember when the UN flag was raised at school on United Nations day. How many young people nowadays know when United Nations day is? Do they know anything at all of the work and structure of the UN?
	With reference to early-day motion 538, will the Government support the UK civilian peace service? We are calling for a non-military force including not only doctors, nurses and teachers but people who could establish civilian government within a country; for example, people who know about local government or who could set up police forces. All those groups could come together—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's time is up.

Roy Beggs: Since 1950, life expectancy has increased by nine years for men and by 11 years for women. That is not bad. Currently, 14 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland is elderly. According to estimates from Age Concern, in Northern Ireland there will be a 50 per cent. rise in the population of pensionable age in the next 20 years. In 25 of the 26 existing district councils, there will be an increase of at least 15 per cent. in that age group over the next 10 years.
	We have a responsibility to ensure that all our elderly citizens are adequately protected. Crime knows no boundary of age or geography. According to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, 3 per cent. of recorded crime in the Province is directed against the elderly. They are subject to the same crimes as the rest of the population—sadly, they suffer from criminal damage, burglary, theft, vehicle theft and assault—but the impact of those crimes on their quality of life is very different.
	Recently, there has been a sharp increase in reported vicious attacks against the elderly. Almost daily, newspapers and television news programmes carry reports of such attacks. The number of violent crimes against older people rose from 140 in 2001 to 204 in 2002—a rise of 45 per cent. in one year.
	We all agree that older people should be able to live safely and securely in their homes and communities, without fear of harassment or attack. The individuals who carry out such attacks are little more than cowards who desperately prey on those cannot defend themselves.
	It may be reassuring to learn from the PSNI crime prevention unit that, of almost 31,000 reported incidents, only 6 per cent. were directed against people aged between 50 and 74, and only 0.5 per cent. against people aged over 75. However, although it could thus be argued that older people are actually at low risk of experiencing crime, there is media concern that many crimes against the elderly are unreported.
	I welcome the development of the community safety strategy in Northern Ireland and our local community safety partnerships. Families, friends and neighbours have an important role in helping to protect the elderly and in contributing to community safety as a whole. Charities and the voluntary and community sector must be congratulated on their constant work for community safety, especially among the elderly. Over the past 10 years, Help the Aged and Age Concern have developed a range of direct services for older people and initiatives for practitioners. They have promoted a balanced approach for practical measures—personal alarms, free phone advice, bogus-caller buttons and locks and bolts—all of which have their place, but our elderly should not be prisoners in their own homes.
	In my constituency, there is a prime example of where the PSNI, the community sector and local government agencies have successfully come together to address the community safety needs of the elderly. In Larne, there were 59 crimes against the elderly between 1 July last year and 30 April, representing 4 per cent. of total crime reported in the district. Burglary and criminal damage are the two main offences committed against the elderly in Larne. There were seven bogus-caller incidents and three robberies, representing less than 1 per cent. of all crime in the district during the period studied.
	In part, the success of those community safety results can be seen in the vulnerable persons scheme introduced last September. Larne PSNI, in conjunction with Larne borough council, Age Concern and the Housing Executive, is taking a proactive role in securing the safety of the elderly in their homes through the joint vulnerable persons scheme. It distributes kits, consisting of door latches, security mirrors, attack alarms, to the elderly and others who feel at risk. The kits have proved very successful and more than 500 have been distributed.
	The crime prevention officer and community police teams have had numerous face-to-face meetings with local residents and groups to discuss and offer advice on safety. The meetings are very important because they reduce the perception of fear, which is greater than the reality. Indeed, reports of failed bogus-caller attempts have already increased from both communities, who are now co-operating well with the PSNI in my constituency.
	The scheme has recently been awarded more than £17,000 from Northern Ireland Office community safety funding to extend the scheme's success, and that is to be welcomed. Larne PSNI has also set about raising awareness of bogus callers by regularly highlighting the issue through the Crimestoppers column in the local press. It is my understanding that, based on that success, the Larne vulnerable persons initiative will be extended across Northern Ireland.
	I encourage other local councils—not only in Northern Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom—to adopt similar schemes to address crime against the more vulnerable members of society. It is time for the Government and society to get tough on those who attack the isolated and vulnerable elderly in our society. I also believe that it is time to revise legislation, with a view to ensuring that enhanced sentences are made available for those who attack and assault the elderly.
	I also encourage the elderly in my constituency and elsewhere to contact their local police station or charities, such as Help the Aged and Age Concern, at the first sign of anything that causes them fear or apprehension, in the confident expectation of a prompt response. We all have a responsibility to do what we can to protect the elderly in our communities, and I urge the Government to fund the PSNI adequately so that it can achieve that objective.

Tom Watson: As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has returned from his cold soup, may I thank him for his kind invitation to his constituency during the Whitsun break? If hon. Members feel that they cannot make it to Cornwall, they are welcome to join me for a special arts weekend in West Bromwich, organised by the highly regarded Jubilee Arts project, which will include a number of action-packed events and performances during the weekend of 31 May and 1 June.
	Hon. Members may know that the arts run deep in West Bromwich. Unfortunately, I am afraid that Mr. Andrew Pierce of The Times did not know that when he wrote last month that
	"West Bromwich has never been regarded as at the cutting-edge of artistic expression",
	so I should like to take this opportunity to invite him to West Bromwich as well. He might like to join in a scavenger hunt, organised by the artist, Joshua Sofaer, in which teams of four will compete for a £1,000 prize by chasing 100 clues to find the hidden West Bromwich. I hope to take part in that myself.
	We in West Bromwich and across the whole black country are trying to transform the perceptions of our area through regeneration. In the next five years, West Bromwich will have a new bus station, a major retail development, a high-tech police headquarters and a new one-stop health centre, and we are undergoing something of a renaissance. I am delighted to say that the centrepiece of that regeneration project will be a new arts and technology centre—the c/Plex centre—which has been organised under the leadership of Sylvia King through Jubilee Arts.
	C/Plex is due to open in the summer of 2005 and will house business units, learning facilities, a gallery, an education centre, a conference base and cafes and restaurants. I hope that it will have a premiership football team as well, but it will certainly not be Norwich City. I say that to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who is big fan of the Canaries. As well as being a key part of Sandwell's regeneration, the c/Plex project will form a major national centre that will partner the new art gallery in Walsall—again, another great midland arts centre—but hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that there are some problems with funding.
	The European Commission has helped to fund the c/Plex project, as part of its energy efficiency budget for buildings and museums. I understand that there are some problems with the funding, and I thank the region's MEPs, who are trying to intervene in Brussels on our behalf, but I hope that the Commission can be persuaded, perhaps by our Government, to continue its financial involvement in that landmark project.
	Sandwell will also be the home of the first urban regeneration company in the west midlands, following the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement last month. The new URC will be a reality, and the current redevelopment of West Bromwich town centre could be just the tip of the iceberg for the six towns in Sandwell. Hundreds of millions of pounds of investment will come into the borough, thousands of well-paid jobs will be created and the borough's appearance and economy will be dramatically changed. The URC will breathe new life into a corridor of land shadowing the Midland Metro from Hill Top in Wednesbury, through West Bromwich to Smethwick, and helping to build a successful future for the area—a future in which we can attract more inward investment and become a magnet for jobs and businesses.
	All those who have been pushing the project are grateful to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for its support and commitment. We now hope to drive the project forward and learn the lessons from the URCs that have been created in other parts of the country, but we are not just using the big multi-million pound projects to improve the local environment and people's quality of life. The Government's drive to tackle antisocial and yobbish behaviour is also about making our communities better and safer to live in, and in that crusade the Government have the support of the people of West Bromwich, East.
	Local people always tell me on the doorstep, at my surgeries, when they stop me in the streets and in their letters and e-mails that they are sick and tired of graffiti, fly tipping, noise, vandalism, the misuse of fireworks and air guns, drunken and loutish behaviour, rubbish and litter on the streets, abandoned cars and neighbours from hell. The problem of noisy fireworks going off, all year round, at all times of the day and night, and the misuse of fireworks by those who are not even old enough to buy them legally seems to have got worse each autumn and winter.
	This year things will be different in one important respect. The industry has come together to produce a voluntary code to ban the noisiest fireworks—air bombs—that drive all our constituents to despair. However, in future years, my constituents hope to have far fewer rude awakenings and sleepless nights, thanks to new legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan); the Fireworks Bill is long overdue. I hope that the powers it gives the Government to regulate the noisiest fireworks and to ban their use late at night will be introduced as quickly as possible when those measures reach their completion.
	The range of measures contained in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill will also help to tackle the kind of behaviour that we should not have to tolerate—for example, the misuse of air guns. A seven-year-old boy from the Hamstead area of my constituency—Hamstead, not Hampstead—was nearly blinded by teenagers misusing air weapons. A pellet lodged in Aaron Clarke's eyebrow, just a quarter of an inch from his eye, after he was fired on while playing near his home. Air rifles can seriously injure people, and are a great danger to animals. In fact, the number of attacks on children and animals rose from more than 7,500 in 1997 to more than 10,000 last year. Sandwell Swan Watch, run by Ian Carroll in my constituency, reports a growing number of wild animals and birds being killed by air guns in our area. We must stop that.
	In West Bromwich, East, we also welcome the Government's success in increasing police numbers. We want to see more bobbies on the beat, to act as a deterrent against crime and to reduce the fear of crime, especially for the most vulnerable and insecure in our communities. Recruiting more officers is one way of getting more police on the streets, but employing community support officers is another, and we hope for the first tranche of those in the west midlands as soon as possible. The rolling out of fixed penalty notices, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last week, will help to cut bureaucracy and the amount of time officers spend doing paperwork in the police station, when they could be out in the community and on the streets.
	I also want to take this opportunity to make a plea for closed circuit television. The tenants association of Hamstead house and Scott house, led by Mr. Reg Hackett, has for many years been pressing for a grant from the local council to improve the security of its homes. I hope that the Government will be able to maintain their support for local CCTV initiatives.
	Another initiative is working well in our community: a technological advance in policing, the automatic number plate recognition system. It works—in one afternoon, I saw seven arrests made using the new digital system, including some seriously hard-core criminals such as crack cocaine dealers and people with dangerous and offensive weapons. I hope that the Government continue to support community police initiatives.
	I reiterate the offer to all Members to visit West Bromwich; perhaps after a few days in Cornwall, they could drive up the M5 to see us, and they would be very welcome. If they want tickets for the scavenger hunt, I have some leaflets, and they can catch me at the end of this debate.

Tony Baldry: Ministers should be concerned at the growing disillusionment about their ability to deliver public services. It is not just a question of people being cynically concerned about spin over substance; a growing concern exists about betrayed expectations, and there is a loss of confidence in the machinery of government. I want to give two examples from my constituency relating to health and education: Bicester community hospital and funding for schools in Oxfordshire this year. I do not seek to make a partisan political point, as, sadly, my observations could be made in practically any constituency in the country at present.
	Almost immediately after coming to power, the Government published a White Paper, "The New NHS", which emphasised the value of community hospitals. Page 41 stated that
	"too often in the past community hospitals have been sidelined. Their potential contribution to managing the pressures of rising emergency admissions has often been ignored. Patients will be able to use local community hospitals to the full rather than having to travel to more distant acute hospitals."
	The Government's early commitment to community hospitals was especially welcome in Bicester, because it had been clear for many years that our existing community hospital needed expanding, refurbishing and rebuilding.
	In 1998, shortly after the Government took office, Oxfordshire health authority undertook a local consultation on the future of community hospitals in Oxfordshire. The health authority claimed that it was anxious to reduce community bed numbers in parts of Oxfordshire, where there was supposedly relatively generous provision, and to increase bed numbers where there was a greater need, such as in Bicester. In short, it wanted to ensure fairness of access to community health services.
	In a debate in the House on 3 June 1998, the then Minister of State, now the Secretary of State for Health, said:
	"Two options are being considered by the health authority and the NHS trust. Both options would mean that the 12-bed hospital in Bicester would be replaced by a new 30-bed hospital".—[Official Report, 3 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 346.]
	The capital and the revenue for the new community hospital at Bicester was going to be realised by closing Burford and Watlington hospitals and reducing the number of beds at five other community hospitals.
	The community health council opposed the proposals, so the final decision had to be taken by the Secretary of State. On 24 November 1999, the then Minister of State, now the Secretary of State, wrote to the then chairman of Oxfordshire health authority, Dr. Peter Iredale, confirming the decisions made about the proposed changes to community hospitals in Oxfordshire. What he said in his letter could not have been clearer, more unambiguous or starker:
	"I am delighted to support the development of a new hospital with additional beds at Bicester. However, I have decided to endorse the closure of Burford and Watlington and 18 beds at Abingdon community hospital . . . I expect the Health Authority, Trusts and Primary Care Groups to work closely to manage the change."
	Understandably, locally, in Bicester and surrounding areas, there was considerable relief that at last there had been clear ministerial recognition of the need for a new enlarged community hospital in Bicester and a clear and unequivocal commitment that one would be built.
	Matters progressed. A planning application was submitted for a new community hospital on the outskirts of Bicester. It is a matter of record that Chesterton parish council objected to that site, as a consequence of which the planning application was called in by the Government to be determined by a planning inspector. There was a public inquiry, as a result of which a different site was identified. Although the delay was extremely frustrating, I, like everyone else in Bicester, assumed that work would go ahead and that in due course, in the not-too-distant-future, Bicester would have a new community hospital. That was the expectation.
	The reality is that the Department of Health and NHS officials appear to be reneging on building a new community hospital at Bicester. Matters have come to a head. North East Oxfordshire primary care trust, which is responsible for taking forward the project, has applied to Thames Valley strategic health authority for funds to work up the detailed project costs of building the new hospital. It has been told that there are no funds for that simple, straightforward project work. The response of the Thames Valley strategic health authority is deeply disturbing and seems to indicate that it is clearly reneging on commitments made by Ministers.
	We in Bicester, and everyone else in Oxfordshire, thought that the money saved from the sale of Burford and Watlington community hospitals would be recycled into a new community hospital in Bicester—not so, it now seems. Thames Valley strategic health authority says:
	"the fact that those hospitals are closed is now the status quo. Those savings will have been re-invested in the system"—
	not held in reserve so that they are available for relocation—
	"and will not be affected even if the Bicester development does not go ahead."
	In other words, the health authority says that any moneys saved previously have been used up elsewhere rather than being earmarked for Bicester community hospital, which means that there is no capital for a new hospital.
	As for the running costs, I understand that the health authority has told North East Oxfordshire primary care trust that the NHS will support a community hospital for Bicester only if every other PCT in Oxfordshire makes a commitment to help to meet the cost of running any future community hospital in Bicester. As the health authority put it:
	"Financial contribution from other PCTs depends on them agreeing to changes in patient flows and agreeing with the Acute Trusts that they will switch investment into the expanded primary care facilities at Bicester."
	It is a totally crazy situation. The NHS is effectively saying that there is neither the money to build a new community hospital in Bicester, nor the money to run an enlarged community hospital even if it were to be built. The hopes of the people of Bicester for a new community hospital are being seriously betrayed. How on earth can that situation be reconciled with the Secretary of State's clear and unequivocal statement in 1999, when he said:
	"I am delighted to support the development of a new hospital with additional beds at Bicester"?
	I also want to talk about schools' budgets. Expectations were very simple. There was an indication last year that schools' budgets would increase by 6.4 per cent. However, pretty much every school in my constituency is facing a funding crisis. I have received a letter from Bicester community college, a comprehensive school in my constituency with a sixth form. The letter says that
	"the College is £180,000 short of what it needs this year to run everything smoothly at last year's levels. Even after making certain cuts from staffing levels which were set out in the first draft of the budget to account for the rising roll, we are forecasting a deficit for the coming year in the region of £120,000."
	The letter outlines why the school is in extreme difficulty and says:
	"We are not sure that the government understands that we are already in the current financial year, and even the staff cuts we might be able to make from September will affect only 7/12ths of the year's budget."
	The letter concludes:
	"We have a commitment to raise standards, and yet, despite a rising roll, will need to cut staff. The government expects schools to implement its workforce reform agenda—and we had some creative plans for doing so in September. Now we have no money to do this, and instead of taking on additional support staff, will need to reduce, hopefully by natural wastage, the number of staff in the school . . . This is a disappointing picture. It has lowered morale and made sensible planning impossible."
	The situation is all the more disappointing because this year Oxfordshire has had the "benefit" of damping worth £4.7 million. It will not receive that next year, so it will effectively have a standstill budget, which will make the situation much worse. Head teachers, teachers and governing bodies throughout Oxfordshire are facing the fact that the reality of what the Government deliver is entirely different from their expectations. That has an extremely corrosive effect on any confidence in the machinery of government and Ministers and officials' ability to deliver. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State for Education and Skills simply to blame local authorities, the National Union of Teachers or anyone else who comes into his sights. Ministers must accept that there is a real problem with school funding that must be sorted out.

Mark Tami: Last week the House debated a difficult but vital matter: the suspension of the elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly. In an ideal world, I am sure that no one in the House would have wanted the debate, but as we unfortunately do not live in such a world it was essential that the House took the decision that it did.
	Holding elections while knowing full well that there was no realistic prospect of forming an Executive, regardless of the outcome of the elections, would have been folly indeed and would have achieved nothing. Indeed, I believe that it would have endangered the whole peace process. Without an Executive, the agreement requires another election to be held within six weeks of the first election. The whole process would have gained a momentum of its own, which would almost certainly have ended in collapse.
	There are clearly some people—and some hon. Members—who would have welcomed such a chain of events because they have not supported the process from the very beginning. They might have and honestly hold that view, but I am sure the majority of the people of Northern Ireland neither hold that view nor want such events to happen—quite the reverse. Opinion polls continue to show that the majority of both communities in Northern Ireland support the Good Friday agreement and want it to deliver and work.
	This has always been a difficult process and the Assembly has been suspended in the past to ensure that the process is not derailed. Some are depicting the postponement of the elections as if the whole democratic mandate of the Assembly is somehow being undermined or even being cancelled for good. It is not—far from it. It is not an ideal situation, but postponement was the only sensible option open to the Government. The elections will be held, and held as soon as possible. If progress is made, I hope and believe that they could be held in the autumn of this year. Postponement, therefore, is a temporary pause and not a step back or an acknowledgement of failure. However, it allows for more time to complete the vital work that needs to be done.
	We should not lose sight of the incredible progress that has been made since the signing of the Good Friday agreement—progress that many would have thought unachievable not so long ago. Indeed, much credit goes to those politicians, including the previous Prime Minister, who took brave and some may say risky decisions and actions to open the door to a peaceful and, I hope, lasting solution to the situation in Northern Ireland. I only wish that some of those who sit on the other side of the Chamber would follow that example.
	The Government have built on those foundations. The process has been supported by many cross-community groups, and much credit also goes to the trade union movement, which has long bridged the sectarian divide in its support for working people in Northern Ireland. It has not been and could never be an easy process. Difficult decisions and compromises have had to be made, but who could seriously deny that the process was worth going through? It has delivered and is delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. It is not perfect, and I am not saying that people in Northern Ireland are dancing in the streets in support of the agreement. There are still many problems, but that does not mean that those people are not directly benefiting from its success.
	Let us remember where we came from. When I was in my youth—believe it or not, that was not as long ago as some Members may think—I recall that news reports on the death of civilians and British soldiers in Northern Ireland were an everyday occurrence. Indeed, such news often appeared well down the reports, because it was such a regular item. The image of Northern Ireland was bleak. It was seen as a place in which companies would be foolish to invest and it would not have been at the top of people's possible holiday destinations or places to visit. It had so much to offer, but its image was tarnished and it was held back by the troubles that had dominated its politics for so long.
	Since the Good Friday agreement, we have seen a very different picture. I agree that that does not apply in all areas, but considerable progress has been made in improving people's everyday lives. Let us look at the facts. Unemployment is down from 7.5 to 4.5 per cent. of the work force, the lowest figure since 1975. Importantly, there has been a drop of 65 per cent. in the same period in the number of the long-term unemployed. That is a major achievement. Gross domestic product per head is rising faster than in the United Kingdom as a whole. Perhaps one of the most telling figures is that manufacturing investment has increased by 15.7 per cent. rather than falling as it has in the UK over the past five years. Again, that is a major achievement. It demonstrates a renewed confidence in the economy in Northern Ireland, a confidence that was clearly lacking before the Good Friday agreement.
	As a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, I have the pleasure of visiting Northern Ireland on a regular basis. One can clearly see the investment that is going into Belfast and many other areas. That renewed confidence is spreading through all sections and all ages of the community. Even those who disagree with my view of how things have changed since the Good Friday agreement surely cannot deny that there are many people alive today—both civilian and military—who would have been killed or maimed had the agreement not been made and signed. If nothing else, it is surely a success on that basis. However, I believe that it has so much more to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. We now have to do everything in our power to ensure that the agreement delivers that goal, and the suspension is just one step and one part of the process. Last week's legislation, therefore, gave us some breathing space to clinch and to close the final gaps that exist.
	The IRA's recent statement is a major step forward. It is a statement that few would have believed possible before the signing of the Good Friday agreement. However, further clarification is needed. The IRA needs to spell out clearly, without any doubt or question, exactly what it means. An end to paramilitary activity must mean exactly that.
	We have seen great progress. However, we cannot ignore the fact that while we have not seen the headline-type of attacks, there have continued to be punishment beatings and related activities taking place in the communities of Northern Ireland. That must not and cannot continue. Equally, if paramilitary activity is at an end, there can be no question of carrying out training, surveillance or the targeting of individuals. Clearly there can be no question of buying arms, or seeking to buy them. All that must stop.
	To move the process on, the IRA needs to make clear, and spell out in detail, exactly what it means by an end to paramilitary activity. If that is achieved, I believe that genuine progress can be made, and we can move the agreement forward so that elections can be held as soon as possible. When these elections are held, I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will look to embrace the opportunities that the agreement offers and not return to the conflict and suspicions of the past.
	We are at a crossroads, but we have been at a number of crossroads in the past. By the sheer determination of all the parties involved that want to find a solution, a solution has been found and we have moved on further. We can do that again. Let us not go back. Too much has been achieved to throw everything away. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland do not want to go back to the troubles of the past. Many people, including politicians, and political parties, deserve credit for their courage and determination in achieving what we have achieved so far. I appeal to those who have for so long sat on the sidelines and have sought to make political capital out of the agreement's difficulties and problems to play a full part in its implementation and to embrace the opportunities that it offers. Only in that way will we have a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

Bob Russell: I shall talk about cystic fibrosis and prescription charges. People with certain medical conditions are exempt from paying prescription charges, and the list of these conditions was drawn up in 1968 when, sadly, most of those with cystic fibrosis died as children. Children, plus people older than 60, as well as those on means-tested benefit, were, and still are, also exempt from paying prescription charges. So in 1968 the charges were not an issue of particular importance to those affected by cystic fibrosis. Fortunately, the outlook for those with cystic fibrosis has improved markedly over the past 35 years and most live until adulthood, although still with a considerably reduced life expectancy compared with the population as a whole.
	However, adults with cystic fibrosis have to pay prescription charges. Most of them are 30 years of age or younger and often they are not earning high salaries as health considerations have affected their education and employment prospects. They and their families bitterly resent having to pay for drugs for this life-threatening disease, without which they would soon deteriorate rapidly.
	The situation is made worse when sufferers of cystic fibrosis learn that others get free prescriptions for conditions that do not seem as serious as CF. That is even worse when we know that the national health service funds those who deliberately inject themselves with illegal drugs and other substances. The NHS funds and treats people with self-afflicted conditions but does not help those to whom mother nature did not deal the cards of life very fairly.
	Once a person is on the exempt list they get free prescriptions for everything, including routine complaints such as coughs and colds. Cystic fibrosis patients have to pay for all of their prescriptions unless they develop diabetes, which is a complication of the disease that affects about 15 per cent. of CF patients. However, 85 per cent. of cystic fibrosis patients do not have diabetes; many eventually die, usually of lung disease, without ever developing diabetes. Therefore, they are never exempt from prescription charge payments as a result of their condition.
	Some adults with cystic fibrosis are exempt from prescription charges for other reasons, such as those still in higher education, those on income support, those too ill to work and those on very low incomes. Some who are in receipt of state benefits such as disability living allowance still have to pay prescription charges.
	The Cystic Fibrosis Trust believes that all adults with CF should be exempt from prescription charges for the following reasons: CF is a life-threatening medical condition for which daily medication is essential; adults with CF are often considerably disadvantaged in economic terms by their condition, and further financial hardship is caused by having to pay prescription charges; and for adults with CF who are in financial difficulty, there is a danger that having to pay for prescriptions may act as a disincentive to take essential treatment.
	It is illogical and unjust that others with similar or less serious conditions are exempt from prescription charges, whereas those with cystic fibrosis are not. CF meets the requirements laid down by the British Medical Association in 1968 and accepted by the Government as criteria for exemption. Specifically, the conditions to be included on the exempt list should be
	"readily identifiable conditions, which in virtually all cases call automatically for prolonged continuous medication".
	CF fulfils all those conditions exactly. The only reason that it was not included on the list in 1968 is that as all children were exempt from prescription charges that included all those with CF at that time.

Tom Watson: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his early-day motion 1, which has been signed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. He is exposing an anomaly. It may be helpful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office to be reminded that it was a commitment in the 1997 Labour party manifesto that we would abolish prescription charges.

Bob Russell: I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention and for drawing attention to early-day motion 1, which has been signed by 146 right hon. and hon. Members. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the leading role that he has played in drawing attention to the anomaly.
	As children with the condition rarely lived beyond childhood, there were no adults with cystic fibrosis to exempt in 1968, so their case was not considered at that time. The Government should act now, as the case is clear-cut and just. When in opposition, the Labour party indicated its intention of reviewing prescription charges. Indeed, it went further, and in its consultative document of 1994 entitled "Labour 2000", it used CF as an example of current injustices that it intended to put right and stated:
	"We will seek to provide free medication as part of on-going treatment for long-term requirements. For example, those suffering from Cystic Fibrosis who reach adulthood should not have to rely on some other category, such as diabetes, in order to obtain free prescriptions."
	However, the Labour Government, now in their second term, have not yet honoured that commitment. The issue of prescription charges was considered in the Government's initial comprehensive spending review, but in November 1998 the then Minister of State, now elevated to the position of Secretary of State for Health, wrote to the Cystic Fibrosis Trust:
	"The list of medical conditions conferring prescription charge exemption was introduced in 1968 after being agreed in discussion with the medical profession and no clear consensus for extending it has since emerged."
	In March this year the Welsh Assembly announced the setting up of a review group to examine the existing arrangements for charges, exemptions and remissions, with a view to exploring the possibility of adding some chronic conditions, including cystic fibrosis, to a list of exemptions for Wales. For the past two years the Welsh Assembly has exempted all young people under the age of 25 from prescription charges. If that is good enough for Wales, it is good enough for England.
	The Cystic Fibrosis Trust has consulted extensively with consultants caring for CF patients, with CF adults and their families, and with professional bodies involved in health care. All those consulted agree that CF meets the criteria for inclusion in the exempt list. It must be assumed, therefore, that the Government have received no advice from any professional body that it would be inappropriate to include CF on the exempt list. It would seem, then, that the lack of clear consensus refers to other medical conditions.
	The Cystic Fibrosis Trust does not accept that an adjustment to the exempt list could not or should not be made for cystic fibrosis because of a lack of consensus on other conditions. The case for including cystic fibrosis on the exempt list is made and accepted. It is wrong to continue to discriminate against young adults who clearly meet the criteria of the exempt list, but may not be covered by any other category of exemption. The cost to the national health service would be minimal, at less than £100,000 a year, in comparison with a drugs bill of £6.6 billion.
	It is estimated that about 7,500 people have cystic fibrosis in the UK, of whom about 3,000 are aged 18 or over. Roughly one third of those are in higher education and another third are too ill to work, which leaves about 1,000 people who have to pay prescription charges. As they have the option of paying by item or by season ticket, most people pay using annual or four-monthly season tickets. That involves a pre-payment of £90.40 for a year or £32.90 for four months. The total cost of including cystic fibrosis patients in the exempt list would therefore be about £88,000 a year—or, to put it another way, less than David Beckham gets each week.
	The time for excuses and fudging is over. The Cystic Fibrosis Trust is hard pressed to meet its commitments on research both to improve symptom control and to make progress on the gene therapy work that, it is hoped, will lead to a cure for cystic fibrosis while it is also subsiding the NHS. The trust's research commitments alone account for more than £5 million a year. In addressing the problems of clinical care, almost £1 million a year is given back to the NHS to pay for doctors, nurses and other clinicians. The trust is also addressing the problem of unacceptable wards in respect of in-patient provision for many young adults with cystic fibrosis, and it is working to bring cystic fibrosis care in the UK up to acceptable standards.
	The trust wants to help and is prepared to co-operate positively and constructively with the Government, but a charity cannot and should not be expected to do the job of the NHS or of the Government. The current arrangements for prescription charges for adults with cystic fibrosis are demonstrably unjustifiable. Those charges should be abolished. The Government should remedy the situation, both because the case is just and to honour the promise that they made when they were in opposition.

Linda Perham: I should like to start with my interest in the situation in the middle east and Cyprus. According to the latest census, the London borough of Redbridge has the third highest Jewish population in the country. On behalf of my Jewish constituents, I raised anxieties about the security and future of Israel with the Foreign Secretary on 28 April. I welcome the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas as the Palestinian Prime Minister, but I am still worried about whether the will exists in the Arab world and Israel to follow the road map to a peaceful settlement within the given time frame. I have grave doubts about the likelihood of progress while Yasser Arafat retains any power or influence. I had a meeting with Mr. Arafat about five years ago; I did not believe then—and I am not persuaded now—that he is genuine about achieving a resolution of the conflict.
	This Government and Prime Minister are friends of Israel. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have always strongly condemned the terror to which the Jewish state is continually subjected in its struggle for existence. I commend the Prime Minister for taking a lead in persuading the US Administration to commit to pursuing the path to peace in the middle east.
	As for Cyprus, I am one of the lead signatories of early-day motion 1116, which welcomes the opening of the green line on 23 April, when Cypriots separated for almost three decades proved to themselves and the wider world that, as Cypriots, they have so much in common. I and my Greek and Turkish Cypriot constituents and Friends of Cyprus, which has campaigned for so long for peace and reconciliation in Cyprus, are more hopeful than we have been for years that we will see not only the accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the EU in 2004, but the real prospect of an end to the heartbreak of partition of that beautiful island, so that all Cypriots can look forward to a prosperous future within the family of European states.
	On domestic issues, I am glad to see some of the results of extra Government funding for public services in my local area. I recently opened a children's information service centre at the Hainault Forest Community Association, of which I am president. Last week, my local paper, the Ilford Recorder, reported a £400,000 Government award to provide an additional 131 nursery places in the borough, including a project with Barnado's—its headquarters is in my constituency—which will receive £92,000 to provide 51 extra nursery places. I am pleased and proud to support the excellent work of Barnado's, and am leading its campaign in Parliament against child prostitution. My early-day motion now has 236 signatures, and I urge more hon. Members to sign it. A Home Office Minister told me last week that the Department has been deluged with letters of support for the campaign from members of the public.
	Extra investment in fighting crime and disorder and the excellent work of Chief Superintendent Michael Johnson and Superintendent Bryan Horsley, the new partnership leading Redbridge's police, resulted last year in reductions in street crime, auto crime, residential burglaries and gun-related violent crime. Street wardens are in place in my local area, and we look forward to the allocation of community support officers to help make our borough a safer place. Another candidate for extra investment is the Crossrail project, which is of enormous importance to east London. The loss in the first part of the year of the Central line tube service, which seriously inconvenienced many of my constituents and me, illustrated the urgent need for transport improvements for existing commuters as well as the need to contribute to the regeneration of the Thames gateway. A favourable "in principle" Government decision is needed urgently so that Crossrail can come closer to being realised.
	Health services have been a major beneficiary of extra public funding. King George hospital in Ilford, which most of my constituents use, is opening a new urology centre and developing an angiography suite, allowing patients to be treated locally, rather than having to travel to other London hospitals. Whipps Cross hospital, which my Woodford constituents attend, met all NHS targets in April for in-patients and out-patients, including 90 per cent. of accident and emergency admissions being treated within four hours, thus becoming the most improved hospital in the UK for that target. The emergency medical centre will soon be completed, improvements have been made to the maternity ward, and there is an ambitious project to redevelop the whole hospital.
	In primary care, the reconfiguration of local primary care trusts within borough boundaries has presented some challenges, but the Redbridge PCT is moving ahead with improvements to speech and language therapy services, an issue of particular concern to parents of children with special needs. Waiting times for GP and podiatry appointments are being cut. My local medical centre in Hainault is to be part of the LIFT—local improvement finance trust—programme to expand and improve health and community services to one of the most deprived areas of the borough. Those improvements are making a real difference to people's lives.
	Locally and nationally, the Tories complain about Government funding while promising to cut public spending, but they refuse to take responsibility for their own policies. For example, the Tory council in Redbridge is proposing a hike in the cost of home care by 100 per cent. in some cases. Disabled, widowed 87-year old Lena Odgers of Barkingside faces an increase of £70 a week. Showing the true spirit of the party of the poor and vulnerable, local Tories have described these swingeing rises of up to £100 a week as "affordable".
	Whoever the Tories are purporting to represent this week, in the past six years the Labour Government have proved that they represent the entire nation by achieving increased support for the poorest and a business climate far superior to the boom and bust of the Tory years. Speaking to the CBI this week, the Chancellor commented on his budgetary strategy and highlighted the reforms that reflect the modern role of Government. His recent Budget introduced new rights for working people, including paternity pay, enhanced maternity rights and a review of pay, training and employment needs of 16 to 19-year-olds. I am glad that the new deal 25-plus gateway to work pilot will run in my constituency. An extension to the new deal 50-plus is planned, but I urge the Chancellor and other Ministers to keep under constant review measures to meet the needs and aspirations of older jobseekers.
	I was also glad to hear of the Chancellor's intention to remove more than 500 regulations introduced by previous Governments. The last Conservative Government introduced more than 3,000 regulations in each of their last three years in office. However, I would advise against any dogmatic response either for or against regulation. My own attempts at legislation on age discrimination and corporate social responsibility have taught me that the voluntary approach can achieve results, but less scrupulous companies and directors will always need a legislative bottom line before they recognise their responsibilities.
	Although I was disappointed by the decision in the Budget to raise the price of cigarettes only by the annual rate of inflation, I pay tribute to the seriousness with which the Government have treated the need to improve public health by reducing the number of people who start and continue to smoke, but more has to be done, including banning smoking in the workplace and in public places in general. I commend the action that is taking place in my area, including the "Together" initiative and the assistance offered by local pharmacies to help smokers to give up that death-dealing habit.
	As secretary of the all-party group on ageing and older people, I am delighted, as is the Redbridge Pensioners Action Association, with the announcements about the abolition of the reduction of pension entitlement to pay for hospital care and the increase in the winter fuel allowance for people over 80. As my parents and parents-in-law are aged between 80 and 88, that measure is a cause for family celebration.
	The Government would not be able to propose those excellent changes in the Budget and to increase investment in public services were it not for their achievement over the past six years in maintaining a robust economy. The Labour Government have not only provided the foundation for establishing and sustaining strong communities and public service improvements, but made available the means to tackle poverty and deprivation in developing countries.

Graham Allen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are you aware that given the number of remaining speakers and the time available, if every Member took seven minutes, every Member would be able to speak?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that Members will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and will perhaps respond.

Iris Robinson: Before I commence my speech, I should like to respond to comments made by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). As hon. Members might expect, I do not agree with his sentiments. I find it rather patronising that he should think that he is in a position to know what is best for the people of Northern Ireland and therefore try to justify the cancellation of democratic elections. If he is so sure that the majority of people in Northern Ireland support the Belfast agreement, let us have elections immediately.
	This Parliament is regarded as the cradle of democracy, yet within recent weeks this House was prepared to abort a democratic election in Northern Ireland because it was unhappy with the probable outcome. Democratic elections conflicted with Government policy on Northern Ireland, and Government policy took precedence. A famed political author once wrote:
	"The right of election is the essence of the constitution".
	In their generation, statesmen such as Edmund Burke spoke out against the manipulation of parliamentary procedure in restraining the people's right to elect their own representatives. More than two centuries later, in May 1997, the Prime Minister appeared to endorse that position, stating:
	"What the electorate gives, the electorate can take away."
	Unfortunately for the electorate in Northern Ireland, they will not now have the chance to elect the representatives whom they see fit to speak on their behalf. Nor will they be given the opportunity to express their opinions on the Belfast agreement, which has been disastrous for the application of democracy in Northern Ireland. As with so many promises and pledges that the Prime Minister has made, that one, too, has been forgotten or simply discarded.
	In the face of international pressure to preserve the integrity of democracy in Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister bowed to the pleading of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who came to him, cap in hand, asking him to abort the election. In the face of overwhelming support for an election from both sections of the community in Northern Ireland, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and the Prime Minister contrived to rob the people of their democratic right to elect those whom they believe best represent their views, and to remove their right to influence the way in which their country should be governed.
	The Prime Minister has now separated himself from the democratic world and joined the infamous ranks of dictators in moving to prevent the application of democracy through free elections. One is reminded of former Argentine premier Juan Peron, who came to power in a landslide election only to take on the role of dictator. As Peron put it:
	"We are no longer interested in elections, except as a means to reach our objectives".
	Is not our Prime Minister emulating that doctrine by his action in Northern Ireland?
	The Prime Minister tells us that because elections on 29 May would not provide the outcome he wanted, there was no point in holding them. He asked:
	"What would be the point of holding an election if a government could not be set up afterwards?"
	The answer is simple: to provide politicians in Northern Ireland with a mandate to negotiate. Twice in recent years, the Government held elections in the Province to establish who had the mandate to negotiate and to determine the strength of each party's viewpoint.
	The democratic authority of Assembly Members has expired. The term of office and the mandate that they were given in 1998 is now spent. In the past five years, the Government have sought to have it both ways in Northern Ireland. They have attempted to create a society in which democracy and terrorism operate in parallel. Of course, that is practically and intellectually impossible.
	Democracy will never flourish in any country where terrorism is lauded and rewarded. The Government say that they would eventually like elections to take place, but only when the outcome is likely to concur with their political agenda. At every stage of the struggle, democracy has come out second best. The people of Northern Ireland have been relegated to the status of Europe's democratic backwoodsmen.
	The Prime Minister told the world that elections had been aborted because of a lack of clarity by Sinn Fein-IRA on future acts of terrorism. Five years ago, he told the people of Northern Ireland:
	"Those who use or threaten violence will be excluded from the government of Northern Ireland".
	Sinn Fein-IRA activity has continued unabated since 1998, yet at no stage did the Government move to support the exclusion of IRA-Sinn Fein from government. The Belfast agreement is founded on providing concessions to terrorists in return for a tactical restriction on terrorist activity.
	If the Government seriously believe that IRA-Sinn Fein behaviour has prevented elections, why did not the Prime Minister hang them out to dry? Why not say, "No. The people of Northern Ireland have had enough of your double dealing. There is no place in government for you until you completely disband, disarm and disown violence, but democratic parties will not be punished for your bad behaviour"?
	Although we are told that IRA-Sinn Fein have not done enough to allow an election to take place, they appear to have done enough to be gifted the concessions in the joint declaration that were supposed to be conditional on IRA acts of completion. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who is the leader of a segment of the Ulster Unionist party, claims to be taking a hard line against the concessions that we now discover he already agreed to at Hillsborough.
	The time has come for the electorate of Northern Ireland, so long denied the opportunity to cast their vote, to have their say. For five years, those of us who have respectably, justifiably, democratically and effectively opposed the Belfast agreement have been marginalised and rebuked. We were dispatched to the political dugout by the press and the Government alike. Those whom we represent and those who would have us represent them were to be ignored and denied a voice. None the less, we decided democratically to enter the institution that we opposed and to argue for change. We have been so successful that we now command support from the majority of Unionist voters, yet the Government deny us a democratic means of effecting change. Have they thought what alternatives that leaves?
	Much is made of suspect polls carried out by local newspapers and TV stations, so I would ask the Government to publish the findings of their own poll that prompted the cancellation of the election. What kind of policy is it that cannot survive the outcome of an election or which will wither, should the light of democracy fall upon it? There is only one way to gauge the feelings of people in Northern Ireland and that is to hold elections and to let the people speak. The election for the Assembly was to have taken place on 1 May; the Government then postponed it until 29 May. Now they say that they hope it can take place in the autumn.
	The truth is that the Prime Minister will allow only an election that he thinks will deliver the result that he wants. This is similar to his attitude to a referendum on the euro. The Government need to come to terms with the reality that the Belfast agreement is dead; it has failed and it cannot be saved. A new deal is needed, and the sooner the process of negotiation starts, the better. The Government cannot run away from the electorate for ever. It is time to let the people speak.

John Smith: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly, in this afternoon's Adjournment debate. The subject that I wish to bring to the attention of right hon. and hon. Members—and, indeed, the country as a whole—is article 17 of the Warsaw convention. I am sure that a lot of Members will be thinking, "What on earth is he talking about?" but in fact, this is a crucial convention that every Member in the House and most members of the public should be clear about, because they will find it on the back of every airline ticket that they buy.
	It is particularly appropriate to be discussing this just before the Whitsun recess, because I am sure that a lot of people will soon be setting off to Heathrow airport to take holidays abroad. In fact, I have just received a message on my pager from the Government Whips telling me to give myself an extra hour if I wish to head to Heathrow, because there are considerable traffic jams on the approach to the airport.
	The convention was drawn up in 1929 to govern the liability of air carriers internationally. It was drawn up at a time when air travel was in its infancy, and still a novel form of travel. People hardly ever travelled by air in those days—certainly not commercially—but the rules that were put together that long ago still govern the liability on air carriers today. That has resulted in an absurd anomaly. Airline companies have no legal liability whatever for the health, welfare or psychological well-being of their passengers. I stress this because I am sure that most Members of the House and members of the public will not be familiar with this information.The absurdity of this anomaly is that airline companies have a statutory liability and obligation towards the welfare, health and well-being of the animals that they carry. They have a duty to provide animals with enough room, to feed and water them properly, and to ensure that they get exercise, yet they have no duty whatever towards the human beings whom they carry on their planes.
	Air travel is now the fastest growing mode of transport in the world: 55 million people a year travel abroad from this country alone. Every time those people get on to a plane, they put their lives at risk. It is not the risk of accident or injury, as common sense might suggest; the greatest risk that they face is to their health and their welfare. They have entered an environment that is both completely artificial and completely controlled by the airline company, but the airline company has no responsibility whatsoever for their welfare.
	Airline companies do not just control where and how passengers sit. Today American Airlines, the biggest carrier in the world, announced its decision to cram even more people on to its aircraft because of its severe economic problems. I know of those problems, but the fact remains that people's health and even their lives are being put at risk. They are being forced to sit, unable to move, for long periods, which leaves them open to the common condition of air travel-related thrombo-embolic disease.

Paul Tyler: As the hon. Gentleman may know, I supported his effective campaign relating to, in particular, deep vein thrombosis. I have also looked into the important issue of air quality in aircraft cabins. There is no proper exchange of information about that, and no analysis of what may have gone wrong in many cases throughout the world. International references to such problems are totally inaccurate.

John Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. Many people in this country are dying unnecessarily from a condition that goes largely undiagnosed, and on which the clinical profession remains silent.
	Flying poses other threats to health. As I have said, airlines control not just where and how people sit—that can involve prolonged periods of inertia and apathy—but the food that they eat and the very air that they breathe. Twenty years ago the air going into aircraft was fresh air, but that has not been the case since the mid-1980s. Now the companies control the amount of oxygen in the air and the temperature in cabins. There is evidence that passengers risk contracting airborne diseases, SARS being the current worldwide problem. Article 17, however, exempts the companies from any liability. In effect it is a licence to kill, and it needs to be changed.
	Only limited evidence is available to us, because unfortunately no statistical studies have been conducted. The World Health Organisation's current research will not be conclusive or definitive, because of the 9 billion euro shortfall in the funds it needs to be able to reveal to us the full extent and cause of deep vein thrombosis among air travellers. We should be in no doubt, however—because no serious clinician doubts—that there is a direct correlation between long periods of inertia on aircraft and the deaths of passengers.
	Professor John Scurr estimates that one in 10 passengers who travel long haul—for more than four hours—develop blood clots, while 43 per cent. of those people develop deep vein thrombosis. Such a thrombosis can be dislodged, move to the lungs and kill a person. That happened in the sad case of Sara Newman, aged 29, of which Members may have read in the national press last week. It is the second case I have encountered of a 29-year-old woman travelling across the Atlantic and developing deep vein thrombosis. In the other case, although the thrombosis was almost fatal, the woman was—thank God—saved.
	Article 17 is absurd, and must be changed. People are dying unnecessarily. Although airline tickets imply otherwise, people cannot insure themselves against death, serious injury or loss of income resulting from deep vein thrombosis developed during flights.
	This is a serious matter of public concern. Today I wish merely to flag it up, to say that this absurd provision must be changed, and to conclude that if any Government in the world should be embarking on negotiations to change it, it is the British Government. The British Government happen to have a first-class record in leading the international field on air health issues.

David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Whitsun recess, I have a number of constituency points that I wish to raise, all of which arise from the Government's complete failure to deliver on their promises. Ministers are arguing with each other, No. 10 and No. 11 have fallen out big time—I understand that they no longer share cups of sugar—and the Government's failure to have a referendum on the European constitution is an absolute disgrace. I am delighted that the Daily Mail, enterprisingly, will conduct a ballot on Thursday 12 June, so that everyone in the country will be able to vote on the issue.
	I want to begin with education. What is happening in education is typical of a Labour Government, in that socialism is having one's hand in someone else's pocket. In 1997, Labour used the phrase "education, education, education." In Southend, we have had a 6.6 per cent. increase in funding for schools, most of which has gone towards special educational needs, but the estimated increase in costs is 9.5 per cent. Education Ministers have got the civil service working overtime putting out letters to Members of Parliament, pretending that things are not quite as bad as they actually are. This is absolute nonsense, because all our schools have had the money given to them taken away through teachers' salaries and pension costs.
	The excellent chairman of secondary heads in Southend, Mr. Frank Keenan, has written to heads about the existence of a shortfall of between £80,000 and £200,000 per secondary school. In fact, for some the shortfall is as bad as £400,000, which means that any number of options will have to be cut. Many of our excellent primary schools have written to me, pointing out that they face cuts of as much as £70,000 to £80,000, the average figure being £50,000. Essex county council faces a cut of £7.6 million. This is simply not good enough. The Government are trying to hoodwink us into believing that they are putting more money into education, but in fact they are taking it away.
	The second issue that I want to discuss is crime. On Monday, I attended an emergency meeting of Leigh crime prevention panel, which was chaired by the excellent councillor, Mrs. Gwen Horrigan.

Bob Russell: Is she a Tory?

David Amess: Yes, she is a Conservative councillor. Southend has a wonderful Conservative-controlled council, which was re-elected on the first Thursday in May. The meeting was attended by certain senior police officers, members of the neighbourhood watch and others. My point is that there is a crisis throughout the country, but particularly in Essex, in terms of disparity in police pay. Metropolitan police officers get £6,000 more than Southend officers, who are consequently leaving to join the Met. The haemorrhaging of officers is particularly severe in Thurrock, Harlow, Basildon and Castle Point.
	In April, the Government suggested that our police forces should reduce overtime by 5 per cent. during the next three years. That is having a huge impact on our efforts to contain the unfortunate problems that we all face in our constituencies with criminality. It is no good Labour Members suggesting that that is not the case; they always seem to be saying that they have problems, while pretending that the Government are doing something about them. The Government are certainly letting the general public down on pay and conditions for our wonderful policewomen and men, who are doing an excellent job in Southend. I ask the Minister to try to do something about pay for Met officers and the cut in overtime.
	My next point is about the health service. There are several single-handed general practitioners in Southend. They do an excellent job, though they are still reeling from the way in which the Prime Minister insulted them at Prime Minister's Question Time last summer, when he suggested that they were not ideally suited to continue on their own. That is not the case.
	About 75 per cent. of the health budget now goes through the primary care trust, and I am disappointed at the failure of my PCT to deliver. I have also noted a huge disparity in what local GPs are paid per patient. One GP who came to see me has 3,563 patients and receives £8.48 per patient, but another doctor in another part of the town receives more than £18. That is not the result of differences in the work that they perform, which makes the disparity more serious.
	Another issue relating to the behaviour of the local primary care trust was brought to my attention by an excellent local GP, Dr. Lawrence Singer. On the corner of the next street, a local GP with many patients retired. It is the duty of the primary care trust to write to all the patients and offer them a choice about whose list they wanted to join. That did not happen in this case. The doctor was initially—insultingly—offered 17, an offer that was later withdrawn. The PCT completely failed in its duty to offer choice to patients.
	Mobile phones are the next subject that I want to discuss. Yet again the Government singularly fail to do anything about problems caused by mobile phones. People drive around with mobile phones stuck to their ears, the law is not being enforced and there is hardly a public building or rooftop in my little urban constituency of Southend, West, that is not having one of those blessed poles installed on it. The latest one was at 839 London road, opposite two schools. Everyone protested, helped by the excellent leadership of Mr. Ian Robertson. I have a petition containing more than 500 signatures, but absolutely nothing gets done. We had little tea parties downstairs in our dining rooms, organised by Hutchinson, Orange and the rest. I attend them faithfully. They know my position, but nothing at all changes. Apparently, the London marine underwriting agency has some responsibility for the London road development. It failed in its duty. As usual, it is a case of passing the buck. We have debated relevant issues in the House and I remain convinced that there is a cancer risk, but the Government fail to do anything about it.
	I have the honour to be the chairman of the all-party rheumatoid arthritis group. The excellent Ailsa Bosworth is the chair for the whole country. A survey of problems suffered by people with rheumatoid arthritis was recently published. Other hon. Members and I are shortly to visit Guy's hospital and a hospital in Sidcup to examine the facilities first hand. The summary tells us that diagnosis, referral and waiting lists for patients with rheumatoid arthritis are poor as judged against Government targets. About 40 per cent. of patients believe that they do not have access to the best treatment. Many people with rheumatoid arthritis do not have access to services that they need, such as occupational therapies, physiotherapies and hydrotherapy. Once again, the Government are letting people down.
	My final point relates to a constituent who is in prison awaiting trial in Egypt. I am delighted to say that, at long last, a meeting with the Egyptian ambassador has been arranged for myself, the hon. Members for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and for East Ham (Mr. Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 3 June. I hope that justice will be done. The trial has been postponed again until the middle of June. I hope that it will be a happy Whitsun for my constituent and others awaiting trial in Egypt. 4.39 pm

Gareth Thomas: When Parliament reconvenes after the Whitsun recess, it will be visited by the Richard commission, which is not terribly well known. The commission will take evidence on a matter that may not be of immediate concern to many of my constituents but which is none the less important—the way in which democracy operates in Wales under the National Assembly.
	I am proud to be part of a ruling party that has introduced a substantial measure of devolution to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The National Assembly is a recognition of Wales's separate national identity, and represents a genuine attempt to create a more democratic society there.
	The commission chaired by Lord Ivor Richard has two tasks. First, it will assess the current state of play, and determine whether the Assembly should have extra powers—and especially whether it should have primary legislative powers. Secondly, it will assess the electoral arrangements, which are rather complicated and involve the additional member system and the application of the d'Hondt system.
	I am very concerned about the view of some members of the chattering classes in Wales. In particular, people in the academic community have shown some disdain for the Welsh model of devolution. Their opinions should not go unrefuted. Although devolution in the UK is not symmetrical, being somewhat à la carte—Scotland has a Parliament, Wales an Assembly—I believe that the present settlement in Wales is entirely sustainable.

Llew Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gareth Thomas: I will give way to my hon. Friend, as I know that he takes an interest in these matters.

Llew Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that just about the only reason given for establishing the Welsh Assembly was that Wales had become a quango state? It was necessary to rectify that wrong by making what was called a "bonfire of the quangos." Research that I and some others have done shows that there are now just as many quangos in Wales as when the Assembly was first set up. Moreover, the amalgamation of quangos and the formation of bodies such as ELWa mean that the quango state is even more powerful. The only reason for a Welsh Assembly was to make a bonfire of the quangos, but no one has struck a match yet. Will my hon. Friend explain the reason for continuing with the institution?

Gareth Thomas: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I admire and respect his views, even though I do not always agree with him. The process of democratising Wales and getting rid of the many quangos that blighted our democracy has a long way to go. I therefore agree that more of a bonfire is needed, but my point is that the present settlement is sustainable. Primary legislative powers are retained here in Westminster, but the Assembly has a wide range of powers in connection with administration and secondary legislation, and it controls the very large budgets conferred on it by this Labour Government. The Welsh block has increased very considerably over the past six years, which has meant massive extra investment in public services such as health and education.
	My point is that the current arrangements are working satisfactorily. The Assembly is a new institution, and it needs time to bed in. Importantly and significantly, the Welsh model of devolution was endorsed by the people of Wales: first, when the general election manifesto commitment of the Labour party received the approval of the people; and, secondly, in the yes vote—albeit narrow—in the referendum held in 1997.
	For the avoidance of doubt, I played an active part in the devolution campaign and remain a strong supporter of the Assembly. It has genuinely added value to the administration of Wales. It has brought decision making much closer to the people of Wales and given Wales the opportunity to develop its own policies. I am pleased that my colleague, Alun Pugh, the Labour Assembly Member for my constituency, was returned. He is now the Minister for Culture, Sport and Welsh Language.
	Welsh is widely spoken in my constituency, even though we are close to the English border. Within 15 minutes, one can be in the large conurbations of Chester or Merseyside. I am pleased that the Welsh language has revived. The decline in the number of Welsh speakers has been halted and, for the first time, there is a substantial increase. That is a tribute to the cross-party support for the language in Wales. The Welsh language remains the strongest Celtic language—long may that continue.
	The present administrative system is sustainable; it is working satisfactorily. Primary legislative power for Wales should remain here. Devolution is a process, not an event, but only in the limited sense that the Government of Wales Act 1998 envisaged that further secondary legislative powers would be conferred on Wales as a natural consequence. Primary legislation should be drafted so that it gives proper discretion to the Welsh Assembly to develop its own policy solutions.
	It is essential that Home Office and policing powers remain here in Westminster where they are dealt with satisfactorily. Wales and England are inseparable in terms of their legal system and courts service.
	There is room for improvement in the proportional representation system. In my constituency, it led to the rather perverse result that every candidate from the four main parties was returned to the Assembly. My colleague was returned under the first-past-the-post system, but the three defeated candidates were returned under the list system, because they held favourable positions in their party's regional lists. Such a result discredits the PR system.
	Although the present arrangements are sustainable, we need to work on them. We need especially to reduce hospital waiting lists in Wales. The Assembly should use its existing powers to the full to deliver for the people of Wales.

Bob Spink: May I start with a pleasant bedtime story? On 1 May, when the good people of Castle Point went to bed their council had a strong Labour majority. When they woke up the next morning, there were 39 Conservative councillors and only two Labour councillors remained.
	The people of Castle Point showed good judgment. That does not surprise me, because Castle Point is a special community. It is a great place to live, with historic buildings, such as the ninth-century St. Mary's church in Benfleet, Hadleigh castle, overlooking the magnificent Thames estuary, and the wonderful Dutch cottages on Canvey Island.
	Castle Point people are wonderful. They are hard-working, self-reliant, enterprising and energetic. They deserve a decent environment in which to live, and that is a problem; they do not have one. They are plagued by bad smells—by an awful odour, which is getting much worse. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Labour Members to laugh, but for my constituents it is not a laughing matter. The Environment Agency described the smell as
	"extremely pungent, nauseating and unpleasant"—
	a bit like the Labour Government, really. It includes sulphurous gases and causes serious anxiety and stress to my constituents. I congratulate the local newspapers on their battles to raise this issue on behalf of residents. They have done splendid work. In particular, I wish to mention the Yellow Advertiser campaign, "Stop the Smells".
	Castle Point borough council is doing all that it can, but the smell emanates from a source not in Castle Point, so it is limited in what it can do and the Environment Agency must take the lead in the solution. I congratulate the borough council and Mr. Alan Longford, the environmental health director, and his staff on what they do for the people, but the Environment Agency could and should have done things years before to prevent the problem from arising now and to monitor and identify the sources of the smell and provide a contingency plan in the event of such smells occurring again. None of that has been done, but it should have been because I raised the problem in the 1990s when I sat on the Government Benches.
	My recent written question reveals that the Environment Agency has recorded 562 recent complaints, which shows how serious the matter is. Last week, the Environment Agency promised me that it would write to all the residents who have complained to it this week, but letters have not yet been sent and I call for them to be rushed out urgently so that people know is happening with this very serious problem.
	I have raised the issue in an early-day motion and several interventions in the Chamber and with the borough council, the Environment Agency and neighbouring colleagues. In fact, next Tuesday, I will visit the Cleanaway site, where the problem exists, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), who is doing excellent work—I congratulate him on it—not only on the recent problem of the smell, but on the longer-term issues about what has been tipped at Pitsea, what material is held there, what dangers to health the materials may pose and how best to remove any problems. My hon. Friend and I are calling for an independent assessment of the risks to public health from the operation at the Pitsea site, and I hope that the Government will provide such an assessment, with the emphasis on independence.
	The Environment Agency has not yet taken the proper, necessary action. According to the Minister for the Environment, the smell has two sources, both at Pitsea tip. He says:
	"Work to prevent the escape of landfill gas from one of the two sources of odour has already begun. The Environment Agency has required that this odour source be abated within three months and it is expected that this will be completed within that time."—[Official Report, 20 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 684.]
	He also says that the second and most prominent source of odour has also been attacked, but that a number of additional measures are also being considered and implemented for that source.
	It is just not good enough to say that three months are needed to clear up the enormous problem caused by the first source, as the smell has been around since February this year and has been recurring year on year. We have known about the problem for at least 10 years, and it is intolerable that proper action is not being taken now. Much too little is being done much too late.
	I am more concerned about the Minister for the Environment's response on the second, more important source, as he implies that, as yet, no solution has been found and says that additional measures are being implemented. We need to know what measures, when they will be implemented and whether the solution will be sustainable so that the smell does not recur next spring.
	In another written answer to my representations, the Minister for the Environment says:
	"The Environment Agency has acted to ensure that more robust procedures are put in place to monitor for odours more actively at Pitsea landfill site. This will enable such odours to be detected and dealt with promptly."—[Official Report, 20 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 684.]
	What a laugh! I asked for that 10 years ago and I did so again a year ago—nothing has been done. Again, the Government have done too little, too late; they seem to have stopped listening. In yet another answer to one of my questions, the Minister for the Environment said:
	"Research into the health effects of the landfill gas is currently being undertaken by the Environment Agency at the site. The research will look into any health impacts that may have been caused by the odours."—[Official Report, 20 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 684W.]
	In another answer to one of my questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Health stated:
	"The existence of intermittent bad odours . . . in the Castle Point area has been known for some time",
	and that the
	"Primary Care Trust are unaware of any medical evidence that people in the area are clinically affected."—[Official Report, 19 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 602W.]
	My constituents want to know who to believe. Is the Environment Minister or the Health Minister right about the health risks? They also want to know who is to be blamed for the health problems that they are suffering. They are reporting to local newspapers and to me a whole range of serious health problems: loss of sleep, nausea, sickness and breathing difficulties. In fact, somebody collapsed and, sadly, died of an asthma attack on Canvey Island a few weeks ago during the height of one of these problems. My constituents are asking me to investigate whether there is a link.
	The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology pamphlet on the health effects of air pollutants states:
	"Mostly elderly and young people and those with respiratory diseases such as asthma or bronchitis are affected."
	It says that SO2 causes
	"coughing, tightening of chest, irritation of lungs",
	NO2 causes
	"irritation and inflammation of lungs",
	and PM10 causes
	"inflammation of lungs, worsening of symptoms of people with heart and lung conditions, linkage of long-term exposure to coronary heart disease and lung cancer",
	and goes on to list other air pollutants and their effects on health.
	We are talking about serious health problems, and we must have clear, definitive answers for our constituents. The Government must state exactly what is held in and what comes from Pitsea tip. They must say what the possible health consequences are, how and when the problem will be removed once and for all, and who is to blame. The strongest possible legal action must be taken now by the Environment Agency against the perpetrators to bring the matter to the earliest possible sustainable resolution.
	The Secretary of State for Education has totally botched the new funding system—yet another display of this Government's spectacular incompetence. We must stop the political buck-passing. When it suited him, the Prime Minister said that education was his priority—"Education, education, education." Now we have redundancy, redundancy, redundancy—3,000 of them are predicted in The Times today. Now, the Prime Minister does not want to know about education. Let me tell him one thing: the buck stops at No. 10. He is responsible, and he should accept that responsibility and deal with the problem. The Government said that Essex should passport the funds, but Essex dealt with what the Government said in a line-by-line rebuttal. It is the Government's responsibility.
	Let me quote from a letter that I received from a headmaster in my constituency:
	"Heads are having to make difficult, irrevocable decisions, including redundancies and larger classes, and a halt to curricular developments. A local example is that we are unable currently to fund our Summer Literacy School for the first time"—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
	A number of hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. If they can be concise with their remarks, I should like to think that all would be successful.

David Kidney: I want to report briefly on a conference that I held in my constituency of Stafford in April on a subject that is of national importance: positive parenting. It is the kind of subject on which much can be done locally and nationally to make a big difference to any society. That is what I want to achieve in ours.
	Features of positive parenting include discipline, monitoring, supervision, warmth and affection and being emotionally responsive. Negative features of parenting would include authoritarianism, neglect, conflict and coercion.
	We do not say as often as we should that parents do a great job raising their children, often in the face of multiple challenges. In the formative years from before birth until a child starts school, who will influence how new human life will turn out if not parents? That time is so vital in shaping the lives of little citizens, whose brain activity peaks at the age of three.
	It is important to recognise that not all parents are birth parents. Death and other tragedies or misfortune may rob children of their parents, which means that grandparents, other relatives, foster carers or adopters bring them up. Social services sometimes have to provide staff to take the place of parents.
	Most people who raise children value help and support from their friends and family but studies show that many parents are not aware of the implications of helpful and unhelpful parenting. Even those who are aware are sometimes at a loss to know how they or others can improve things. However, studies show that if parents are given the opportunity to develop their understanding of their babies and children's emotional world and receive help to learn new skills and more helpful ways of relating to their children, the insight changes their attitude and behaviour and improves their health and that of their children.
	Parenting starts with the unborn child, and I have emphasised already that the early years are crucial. There are other key times in later childhood when help and support may be beneficial, such as when a child moves up a school, when there are hormonal changes and when children get their first boyfriend or girlfriend.
	Education and support is available for parents, but its provision is patchy. There are parent support groups, parenting programmes, sure start initiatives, drop-in centres and helplines—the list goes on. Universal parent education and support services can encourage the spread of helpful parenting from one parent to another, which avoids any social stigma due to parents feeling that they are being singled out as inadequate in some way. I hope that it is obvious to hon. Members that more intensive help and support should be available for families who face greater challenges.
	My aim is a public policy under which all parents can get advice and information when they need it and if they want it. Some parents might want to go further by attending parenting programmes or receiving home visits, at which more in-depth help and support may be given. Professionals in all walks of life, such as doctors, nurses, midwives and health visitors, will encounter parents and children who need help. The same mix of universal and targeted services should be accessible when parents and professionals agree that it would be useful.
	Unhelpful parenting can lead to harmful outcomes, such as children not learning social skills or feeling emotionally excluded, stupid and incompetent, or frustrated and angry. Long-term consequences for children include: having little attachment to their family and schools; having no good friends; failing in love and having violent and unsatisfying relationships; poor confidence; low qualifications; and a poor work record. In serious cases, the consequences include antisocial and criminal behaviour.
	Positive parenting means being warm, affectionate, caring, supportive, emotionally attuned and emotionally literate. It is worth society giving more help and support to parents because it leads to good outcomes for the health and well-being of parents and children, the result of which is stronger families. It is worth it for the savings to society because children who do not settle well into school and have a tendency to be difficult and antisocial go on to cost society 10 times more than the majority who behave in a more usual way.
	The Government are willing to help and their good moves include setting up the parents' centre, which is a website that provides information for parents. They established the National Family and Parenting Institute, which is a think-tank for family and parenting issues, and Parentline Plus, which is a free and confidential 24-hour helpline—I must mention the fact that its number is 0808 800 2222. Such services show the Government's commitment. However, it is also important to provide universal services that support parents, because that will save us a lot of money. Universality does not mean that we must spend a lot, just that services are available to everybody who wants them at the level that they want.
	Many provisions exist to help parents including Parentline Plus, the NFPI, Government services, health visitors, primary health care services, social services and the voluntary sector. I know of great work by Home-Start, Relate and church groups in my constituency—they are all very helpful. More demanding situations require parenting programmes and home visits from more resource-intensive sources such as health visitors with special skills, child psychologists and senior social workers.
	We have to start somewhere, so I suggest that pilot schemes should be established. I volunteer my constituency of Stafford as somewhere to base an early pilot scheme. If the Government give me the money, I shall set up the scheme for them. The Government are soon to publish a Green Paper on children at risk and that could provide a good opportunity to make an announcement. I suggest that parenting is a good way to stop children being at risk in the future.
	I shall end with the comments of my friend, Norman Crockett. I was a councillor for 10 years, but he served for 27. We were in the same ward and we sat every Thursday night in a draughty church hall seeing people at our advice surgeries. In our quiet moments, he would always say, "David, if all children in their formative years had the sure and certain knowledge that they were loved and wanted, we would live in a very different world and we could throw away the keys to prisons." The final comment might be a bit of an exaggeration, but I would like to think that Norman, who is now 90 and in a residential home, could see this change in public policy in his long and productive life.

Alistair Carmichael: I would like to take a few minutes of the House's time to bring to its attention the plight of a countryman of mine who is currently on death row in Ohio. Kenny Richey, a 39-year-old Scot from Edinburgh, has been on death row since 27 January 1987 when he was convicted of killing a two-year-old girl in a fire. I very much regret that this case does not show the United States criminal justice system in a good light. In particular—this is relevant to the debates in the House on criminal legal aid—it shows the state-funded public defenders office in an especially poor light.
	The case also highlights other inadequacies relating to the appellate system in the United States. Whatever the inadequacies there might have been in the trial, new evidence—principally forensic evidence—has been found subsequently, and it raises substantial doubts about the safeness of the conviction. That is not even disputed by the prosecution authorities in Ohio, and Prosecutor Dan Gershutz has said:
	"Even though this new evidence may establish Mr. Richey's innocence, the Ohio and United States constitution nonetheless allow him to be executed because the prosecution did not know that the scientific testimony offered at the trial was false and unreliable."
	I regard that rigid and procedural attitude to justice to be complete anathema. It turns on its head any notion of natural justice.
	The events that brought Kenny Richey to his current position started in the early hours of 30 June 1986. A fire started in an upper flat in an apartment building in Ohio and flames rapidly spread and engulfed the flat before firemen were able to extinguish the blaze. Minutes later, the body of a child, Cynthia Collins, was carried out. The mother's position was that Cynthia's babysitting was to have been carried out by Kenny Richey, but his position has always been that he was too drunk to do any such thing and that he never made any such agreement. It also transpired that there is evidence that, when the mother of the child arrived at the hospital, she told the doctor that the child had set fires in that flat on previous occasions. That was known to the prosecution at the time, but the information was never imparted to the defence. As a former procurator fiscal depute in Scotland, I must say that an attitude that does not compel the prosecution to give to the defence every single aspect of information that could be of use is repugnant. Again, that is anathema to me.
	Just about everything that could wrong with Kenny Richey's case, its investigation and prosecution did go wrong. Right at the start, the local fire chief decided that it was an accidental fire and, accordingly, all the furnishings and, vitally, the carpet were removed from the flat. It was decided only later that the case should be the subject of a criminal investigation, and the stuff was recovered from the dump to which it had been taken. Ironically, it was then stored next to a petrol station.
	It also transpired that the prosecutor in charge of the case at that time was running for judge. He was dealing with the first capital case in Putnam county since the 1800s and, not surprisingly in these circumstances, the case against Kenny Richey dominated the local news for months. That obviously brought with it concomitant publicity for Prosecutor Basinger. He was eventually elected to judge, and a major plank of his campaign made it clear that he would be seeking the death penalty in the Kenny Richey case. In the election, the prosecutor promptly offered a plea bargain, indicating that if Kenny Richey would plead guilty to second-degree murder, he would receive a sentence of 10 years with the possibility of parole after six years. Not surprisingly, that offer was refused, so the case was sent to trial.
	There were a number of difficulties, not least the fact that the lawyer of the public defenders' office who was assigned to Kenny's case was somewhat green. He seemed not to take a great deal of care in the preparation of his case. He did not avail to Kenny the many opportunities that should have been made available to him. To take one example at random, he did not, incredibly, hire a fire expert to give evidence. Instead, he took in someone who was an expert in metal fatigue. He never challenged the state's report or carried out his own examination of the scene or the evidence. I understand that he advised Kenny Richey not to testify. Not surprisingly, Kenny Richey was convicted.
	There were forensic questions that should have been asked but were not. Not least, if, as it was claimed, paint thinner and petrol had been sprayed about the flat, why was none found on the clothes of Kenny Richey when they were forensically examined?
	There is much that I could say about the case. However, I am mindful of the number of Members who wish to participate in the debate. I leave the last word with Kenny Richey, who said:
	"I want the opportunity to prove my innocence. I want a fair trial, and I'm not going to give up until I get it or they kill me."
	In these circumstances, I very much hope that given that we are dealing with a Scottish citizen, the Foreign Office might in time be able to render some assistance.

Graham Allen: It is the second occasion this afternoon that I shall begin my contribution in your presence with a procedural point, Madam Deputy Speaker. There must be a better way to conduct Adjournment debates on recesses. Colleagues who have sat in the Chamber throughout the afternoon have been cutting down their 10 minute speeches to nine, eight, seven or six minutes. [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will have a positive contribution to make when he replies on behalf of the Opposition. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will also respond to my specific point. There is no reason why we cannot have a list of speakers who are allocated 10 minutes, or even why the day cannot be extended to ensure that a given number of Members get in.
	I was going to talk at some length about the difficult and complex issue of Iraq. However, I feel that now that time has been compressed, I would rather talk about something a little closer to home.
	I was at a helpful and educational meeting in the House the other evening about citizenship, and the fact that citizenship is increasingly appearing on the school curriculum. The issues included how young people connect with wider society and how we end the alienation from and the lack of participation in civic society. That is all very commendable. However, in the context of my constituency, which consists of eight large working-class estates within which there is extremely low educational attainment, even citizenship, as a concept, would go over the heads of most of the young people. Many of them do not have even the basic emotional and intellectual tools to make the best of their education at school, let alone to consider the slightly more esoteric realms of civics and how to participate in democracy.
	Often, those young people are unable to take part in educational opportunities because of the way that they are raised at home. I hope that all Members received from one of their parents, or both, the sort of background—the understanding and the emotional currency, as it were—to engage in the exchange of ideas and to develop themselves personally and emotionally. That enabled them to take part in education and social activities, and then to develop because of all the opportunities that existed around them.
	I was about to refer to bad parenting, but that implies that on occasions parents are acting deliberately to the disadvantage of their children. However, the cost of ignorant parenting is extremely high, not only because the child cannot make the best of himself at school, but because when some children go wrong, the result is exclusions and contact with the social services. There may be an element of criminality. That may lead to the involvement of counsellors, Members, housing officers and police officers. All of us pick up the pieces when the basic family environment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) described so eloquently, does not exist.
	I do not wish to be cast as big brother, but where that basic human element of parenting is not present, somebody has to pick up the pieces, and the earlier we do that, the better. The earlier we intervene to ensure that young people can make the best of their lives and the best of everything that society has to offer, the cheaper it will be in terms of the expensive resources and person-power needed to get them back on the straight and narrow. It may take many years. It may be after a lifetime of drug addiction, criminality or missed opportunity. If we can get to those young people early, if—as in the case of many of my constituents—we can support and underpin them pre-school and even at school, we will do them a favour, and we will also do ourselves a big favour, because of the benefits that can accrue to society.
	We can talk about the big picture, but I shall give an example. At one of the secondary schools in my constituency, 20 per cent. of the kids are on the at-risk register. Six young girls at that school were raped at home last year. In such circumstances, we have a duty to intervene, to help, to develop and to make better. That is one of the most ardent and certain duties that hon. Members should feel.
	Where do we go from here? One of the key requirements is to ensure that we develop and broaden the teaching of citizenship, which is now a compulsory subject in the national curriculum, and give every young person the ability to be a good parent. My goodness, what an investment that would be, and what a money saver, were we to underpin our young people, not necessarily to change their parents, but so that when they mature and have children of their own—often far too early—they have the social and human skills to pass on to their children, as every parent would want in the rational world.
	I hope very much that the issue is taken seriously. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for raising it in the debate. It is an issue of the greatest importance in social policy, but in all our desire to deliver on public services it often gets forgotten. It is an essential part of the national curriculum and is far more important than any academic subject, as it is the key to attainment not only in academic subjects, but in life itself.

Richard Younger-Ross: First, I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). There must be a better way of organising debates such as this. I hope that the Modernisation Committee will consider the timetabling of these debates.
	I intended to speak on a complex issue and present a number of quotes. Mindful of time, I will not try to do that now. I hope to raise the issue at a later date. Instead, I shall briefly bring to the attention of the House the proposals of the university of Plymouth announced last November for the closure of Seale Hayne college in my constituency; the closure of the arts college in Exeter, the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office; and the closure of the arts college in Exmouth, in the constituency of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire).
	The consultation period allowed by the university for such a dramatic change was one month. I do not believe that one month's notice of the closure of a college is adequate. I do not believe that that is enough time for people to collect their thoughts and suggest alternatives to the governors. The university has acted in a disgraceful manner in claiming that there was a consultation process. It was a farce. I had a meeting with the deputy vice-chancellor, Peter Evans, shortly after the announcement was made. I asked him what was going to be done with the Seale Hayne campus. At that time, he did not know. He said that there would perhaps be a conference centre there. Those involved had not thought the matter through very far.
	I must congratulate the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the south-west chamber for rural enterprise and others who have been part of a group considering alternative uses for the site. They have now come up with positive proposals for a centre of rural excellence, but the heart of the college, undergraduate education, will still be lost.
	I shall give one quote. The college was established at the bequest of an hon. Member of this House, Charles Seale Hayne, who wrote in his will that his money should be used after his death to
	"endow a College for the promotion of technical education of Artizans and others without distinction of creed primarily and especially with reference to the Manufactures industries and products of the County of Devon such college to be established in the neighbourhood of Newton Abbot."
	That will and covenant, and the trust that was placed, has been destroyed by the removal of undergraduate education. I hope that the college will reconsider its proposals and look at how it can provide undergraduate education on that site.
	The vice-chancellor, Professor Roland Levinsky, was not available to talk to anyone immediately after making the announcement, as he was away. Eventually, after some time, he agreed to meet me when another case arose in which students were suspended from the college. I hasten to add that they were suspended in relation to a magazine that they had issued. They were guilty of an injudicious use of words and I do not support what they said, but they were suspended for more than a month while their case was heard. Two students were suspended for a month on the basis of a fairly minor incident, but the entire community of Newton Abbot and all the students have only a month to make representations about the future of the college. I used the word "disgrace", and I emphasise that that is what it is.
	I asked Professor Levinsky what studies had been done on saving and keeping undergraduate education. He could not answer that question. All he would talk about was the new plans for the big new university in Plymouth and academics coming together and being cuddly together, as well as making some other comments, which I shall save for another debate. What he could not answer was the question whether those involved had looked into how the college could be saved or how they could bring in more foreign students. He could not say why the college, as an agricultural and rural affairs college, had no presence at all the county shows to encourage students to go there. Remarkably, it was at the Devon county show last week; I do not remember it being there the year before.
	I appreciate that time is short, so I shall leave my comments at that, in the hope that I will be able to debate the matter fully at a later date.

Alan Hurst: Like the last few speakers, I shall apply the self-denying ordinance and cut down dramatically what I had intended to say. I am sure that that will be a blessed relief to most of the hon. Members who are now gathering in the Chamber, who will have come back in anticipation of the winding-up speeches rather than the last few Back-Bench speeches.
	I wish to spend a moment or two speaking about Stansted airport and its proposed expansion. The consultation period is running to a close and will expire at the end of next month. There are a number of vital issues, and they can fairly rapidly be put before the House.
	Stansted itself lies in the parliamentary division of the Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). My parliamentary division is some 10 miles distant, but a number of its villages are close to the area that would be severely affected if the expansion went ahead.
	One can summarise very quickly the difficulties that would arise if one, two or three extra runways were built, depending on the final number that would be settled on if the worst occurred. With any number of runways, the first thing that would occur is an increase in flight traffic and the noise and other pollutions that flow from aircraft travel.
	In some ways, aircraft travel is the smallest part of the problem. The motorised travel that follows on the back of it creates enormous environmental burdens for people living in the area. Not only will there be 25 million, 50 million or 60 million extra passengers—or whatever figure the planners have in mind—but there will be an almost unimaginable number of extra vehicles on the road system. Some people argue that the airport will bring extra jobs, but houses in picturesque and historic villages are not property that baggage handlers and other airport workers are likely to inspect, let alone be able to afford. Those houses will go to people commuting to Cambridge, London, Chelmsford or further afield. The extra houses that will be built will be of no benefit whatsoever to the local community. Expansion will impinge on a countryside that, although it may lack the grandeur of the Scottish highlands or the romanticism of Dartmoor, is gentle rolling hill country with streams and woods—in many ways, it is an idealised picture of the way England once was. Within that countryside there are villages, historic houses and communities, all of which would go if airport expansion took place.
	We need to consider other issues. How do we deal with the airport problem if in fact somebody does not have to take a decision? I see that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who represents an area that would be affected by Heathrow expansion, is in the Chamber. I cannot see anyone from an area that would be affected by expansion at Gatwick. However, they would make a case similar to the one that I am making. There is a legal maxim that equality is equity. If we are to deal with the problem of airport expansion, the load must be spread as widely as possible and as far north as possible so that parts of the country that need regeneration can benefit, rather than the overheated economy which the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and I believe exists in our county.
	I shall conclude with some observations on the expansion of Stansted airport:
	"I stood at numerous vantage points around and within the safeguarded area"—
	the area outside the present boundaries—
	"and visualised the utter devastation which development would wreak on this virtually unspoiled and particularly attractive tract of typical Essex countryside . . . It would constitute an environmental invasion on a scale without precedent in the history of the UK . . . I am convinced that such a monster cannot and must not be inflicted on this precious landscape".
	Those are not my words or the words of a Stansted protester—they are the words of Mr. Graham Eyre QC, the Government-appointed inspector in the Stansted inquiry of the 1980s. I shall say nothing more, and shall simply rely on the words of the Government's own inspector as the answer to Stansted's expansion.

Tony Banks: I am delighted to speak in this traditional and amiably pointless debate. It is reassuring to see the usual suspects in their places. They are a fairly eclectic group—there are supporters of good causes, espousers of lost causes, local press release junkies, sad whingers and, of course, the mad professor types. [Hon. Members: "Which one are you?"] In my time, I have been in all those categories. I wish to raise two particular issues this afternoon. First, I shall speak in my capacity as a former world statesman, now fallen on hard times, and talk about the Olympic games. Secondly, I shall speak as a mad professor type.
	There will be opportunities to discuss the Olympic games in future. I am delighted that the Government have announced that they will support the London bid. I have an interest to declare in that if we are successful, much of the site will be in my constituency of West Ham in the east end, and we will enjoy a legacy there. We will get the legacy of the Olympic village, which will provide good social housing in the area, and an Olympic stadium, which, I trust, will be the home of West Ham United football club, or of Tottenham Hotspur or Arsenal: clearly, it must be a football legacy. The legacy of facilities is important and must be taken into account.
	The only other comment that I would make on the games is that it is easy for everyone to cheer us on now, but when difficulties are encountered—as they will be, given that every bidding city has experienced them—I hope that those who came along to the champagne receptions will stay with us. Alas, I fear that they will not, particularly the press, who will of course immediately start to blame the Government, and everyone except themselves, for the fact that we ever entered a bid in the first place. That is sad, but we need to bear it in mind. We are up against very stiff competition in the shape of Paris, where the Government take a much more direct and hands-on approach towards such big sporting occasions. Our Government—understandably, given that the dome and Picketts Lock are still around to haunt them—perhaps feel that they can take a more hands-off approach. Unfortunately, that will not work, because when difficulties are encountered, they will undoubtedly be blamed. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will keep a close watch on the issue. Let us hope that we are successful in our bid, because it would be great for sport, great for the country, great for London and particularly great for the area that I am privileged to represent.
	Right hon. and hon. Members can easily read about my second point, which I raise in my mad professor role, if they turn to early-day motion 1252. For some time, I have advocated the establishment of a mandatory national register of DNA. It is about time we seriously considered that. It would be of enormous benefit in terms of crime detection and deterrence, and a valuable aid in identifying people who have been involved in catastrophes such as the twin towers. It is sad to have to mention such things, but we live in an increasingly dangerous world, with the continuing possibility of terrorist attacks. To those who say that it is an intrusion into civil liberties, one has to reply that the greatest civil liberty of all is the ability to live in peace and safety in our own countries and communities. A national DNA register would assist us in doing that. The process is non-invasive—it simply involves swabbing in the mouth. Of course, we already have a significant DNA register, but it does not extend to us all. Perhaps, as Members of Parliament, we should all volunteer our DNA to a register. Certainly for babies, it could be done at the same time as the registration of the birth.
	I hope that Members will not see this as further evidence of my lurch to the right, but will realise that in a world that is more dangerous and where people move around far more freely than they ever have in the past, a system that would enable us to keep track, in a benign way, of all our citizens at home and abroad, would be of great advantage to the country.

Ross Cranston: I want to say a few words about two matters, the first of which is the apparent resurgence in the past couple of days of international Islamist terrorism. We must be thankful, of course, that in the past year there have been no acts of Islamic terrorism in this country, although we are designated a special target. Writing in The Times earlier this week, Amir Taheri pointed out that acts of international terrorism have in fact declined, but rightly said that we cannot be complacent. We have taken effective action in several areas, and must continue to do so. The international Islamic terrorists have lost bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The article mentions terrorist finance. I want to ask the Treasury about two aspects of that.
	We have introduced effective laws for financial institutions and their disclosure obligations and we have also frozen considerable amounts of terrorist finance. However, there is a need for international co-operation and there are gaps in international controls on terrorist financing. Last year, Ukraine and Nauru were on the black list because they did not have effective controls on money laundering and terrorist financing. There is also the problem of the alternative remittance systems; the hawala money transmission systems. We have brought those into the regulatory net, but even in the International Monetary Fund there is doubt about whether we can ever effectively control payment through those systems. I should therefore like an assessment of the effectiveness of the controls that we introduced last year.
	I turn to consider Iraq and our responsibilities there. Under the Hague convention of 1907 and the Geneva conventions of 1949, we are an occupying power. That means that, first, commanding officers of our armed forces are charged with the duty of maintaining peace and order, punishing crime, and protecting lives and property in the area of their command. An issue arose about United States forces and the protection of the national museum and national library. I do not have time to go into that and whether effective steps were taken. However, I note that several items have come back to the national museum under an amnesty. The draft United Nations Security Council resolution, which, I hope, will be passed this afternoon, imposes an obligation on all member states to take effective action to ensure the return of objects looted from the national museum and the national library. They will have to have laws to prohibit the trade or transfer of suspected items.
	Secondly, we have responsibilities for the treatment of civilians and prisoners of war. In the past day or so, there have been press reports about an investigation into claims that a British Army officer has mistreated civilians and prisoners of war. I am sure that the Army's special investigations branch will scrupulously pursue those allegations. However, it is plain under the Geneva conventions that an occupying power has an obligation to prevent violence to life and person and the humiliating and degrading treatment of prisoners of war and civilians.
	Thirdly, there is a general prohibition on transferring civilians out of occupied territories. Prisoners of war and their civilian commanders can be transferred for trial for war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, but the transfer of persons to places such as Guantanamo bay, if they are detained without trial, is wrong. I raised that matter and the detention of Britons who were captured in Afghanistan in the Easter Adjournment debate. In a recent written answer, the Foreign Office said that the Government were pressing the United States at senior levels to resolve the position of the British detainees. I can only urge the Government to keep on pressing.
	Fourthly, there has been some discussion about the legality of rebuilding Iraq without a UN Security Council resolution. I hope that such a resolution will be passed later this afternoon. The accusation that our actions in the past five weeks have been in breach of international law is misconceived. Under the Hague convention and the Geneva conventions, an occupying power is precluded from annexing territory and appropriating assets. It must respect and maintain existing institutions. However, there must be qualifications. For example, there can be no obligation on an occupying power to respect and maintain all the institutions and laws of a dictatorship.
	We can have political arguments about the role of the UN in the reconstruction of Iraq. The draft resolution adopts a different approach from that in Kosovo and Afghanistan. However, it is important to note that in the draft resolution, the UN will play a vital role in humanitarian relief, Iraq's reconstruction and the restoration of institutions of representative government. To that end, the draft requests the Secretary-General to appoint a special representative. Paragraph 9 of the draft resolution underlines the important role of the special representative in rebuilding the political institutions of Iraq. The Secretary-General will also appoint someone to sit on the international advisory and monitoring board of the development fund for Iraq, which will be subject to international auditing. To my mind, therefore, there is clear transparency of the fund.
	I also wanted to discuss the obscene levels of executive pay and the measures needed to control them. I was very attracted by the Bill introduced earlier this year by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is about to introduce a discussion document on the subject. I very much look forward to hearing what she has to say.

Eric Forth: Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that I am a great believer in convention in this House, but I am inclined on this occasion to break our conventions almost gratuitously. Today, the Minister and I agreed very readily that we would reduce the amount of time that we would require for summing up so as to allow more Members to make contributions. I am happy to say that that has worked, although Members have had to cut their contributions dramatically. The effect of this will be clear to all, however. We have heard more than 20 contributions in the debate, and by my reckoning they have covered well over 16 very different subjects. Frankly, for me to attempt to sum that up on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition in any meaningful way in 10 minutes is faintly absurd. I am therefore not going to attempt to do so.
	Part of the problem was touched on in a peevish comment by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who then beetled off and is sadly even now not in his place. I blame the modernisers for this problem, because it is those folk who insisted on leaving at 6 o'clock on a Thursday. In the good old days, we would have been here until 10 o'clock, and all the Members who wanted to speak would have had all the time in the world. But this insistence by the modernisers that we must cut our hours and work so-called civilised hours has brought us to where we are now.
	Now we have to make a choice: either all Members get to say something, although some have had to cut their remarks to an almost ludicrous extent, or the summing up cannot be in any way meaningful. I extend my sympathy to the Minister in this regard; he will find himself in exactly the same position. He will do his best, of course, but Members want a meaningful Government response. I know that that is what they want; they do not particularly want one from me. Nevertheless, I am going to stay on my feet for a few minutes; that is all that I have left. Members want some response from the Minister and he simply will not be able to do justice to their contributions. We have a dilemma, and I hope that the powers that be on the Procedure Committee, the Modernisation Committee or whatever will turn their thoughts to it. Otherwise, this process will become less and less meaningful in parliamentary terms.
	Having said that, the debate has ranged across subjects as varied as Cyprus, the United Nations, asylum, the elderly, antisocial behaviour, public service failure, Northern Ireland elections, cystic fibrosis, deep vein thrombosis, the Welsh Assembly, odours, parenting, the US judicial system, the closure of colleges, Stansted airport, the Olympics and DNA. That gives some idea of the breadth of the interests that Members have. It is interesting to note that, by my reckoning, the subjects were split roughly half and half between constituency concerns and more general issues. That is an interesting comment on the choice that Members make in using the time available to them in these Adjournment debates.
	The contributions highlighted various difficulties. For example, there were several speeches about Cyprus. The hon. Members for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox) both mentioned it, as did one or two others. They were saying, "Why can't these people get together, be sensible and put aside their differences in order that they may all prosper together?" That is not an unreasonable prospect.
	I welcome back to the Chamber the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, who is staying as late as 6 o'clock to hear the conclusion of the debate. He can read what I said earlier in Hansard, and he will not like a word of it.

Graham Allen: The House is so modern that I had the great pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks on the television in my office. I have hurried down to the Chamber to tell him that the reason that we finish at 6 o'clock is because of the clowning around involved when he used to take the House through into the early hours of the night. I congratulate him on that.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for doing us the honour of returning. I am not sure whether I approve of him scuttling off to his office and watching the proceedings on television while pretending that he was here taking part in them. That is another development that I deplore and wish that we could get rid of. I would personally disconnect all the televisions in the offices and have Members here in the Chamber, but then, I am an old-fashioned sort of guy.
	I was talking about Cyprus. I wanted to make a distinction between Cyprus and Northern Ireland, as some Members touched on the subject of Northern Ireland. This is the irony. Members plead, not unreasonably, for reconciliation in Cyprus and for people with different attitudes, cultures and traditions to come together and see things in a similar way. This afternoon, we heard about our own problem in Northern Ireland—a problem that we have not been able to solve after several hundred years of difficulty, and one that is very similar in essence to the Cyprus problem. In a single debate, in one afternoon, two very different subjects have overlapped, and illustrated the same problem in different ways.
	Many Members illustrated the difficulties faced by any Government, not least this one. The hon. Member for Ilford, North, as a good, loyal Back Bencher, praised the Government. I hope that she gets a job in the reshuffle that may well take place tomorrow. She had better sit by her telephone. She then said, however, that there was not enough money for Crossrail or for other things in her constituency, thus neatly illustrating the difficulty that the Minister will experience in trying to placate colleagues who, having praised their Government for what they believe is good, nearly always add "but on the other hand"—and then proceed to make what is usually a not unreasonable demand. Such are the difficulties and dilemmas of government.
	I have got all that off my chest, and I have not even attempted to reply to the debate for reasons that I have already given. I shall now sit down and leave the Minister a little extra time in which to please his colleagues and at least do some honour to the traditions of these debates.

Ben Bradshaw: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was courteous to give me a little more time than I expected. As a BBC radio journalist, I was disciplined to try and tell a story in 40 seconds, and I have never quite understood why the difference between 10 and eight minutes is so crucial to Members trying to get their points across in speeches. The fact that Members have made very good speeches today in six, seven or eight minutes shows that it is possible.
	As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is difficult for me as the Minister to do justice to all the points raised in the time remaining. I hope that hon. Members will accept today, as they have in the past, that if I fail to deal with all their concerns here and now I will write to them, or encourage those in the Departments to which those concerns are really directed to do so.
	As the right hon. Gentleman said, we have enjoyed references to the usual rich variety of topics in this traditional pre-recess Adjournment debate, from odours in Castle Point—about which the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) rightly kicked up a stink—to the situation in Cyprus, raised by a number of my hon. Friends including my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox), for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) and for Ilford, North (Linda Perham). I will certainly draw their remarks to the Foreign Secretary's attention at this critical juncture for the future of Cyprus. I hope that I can reassure them by saying that the Government believe that a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus on the basis of the United Nations plan is in Turkey's interests. We regularly make that clear to the Turkish Government.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) spoke about our procedures and the accountability of Government in this place. I am ashamed to say that I have not yet had a chance to read the whole of the work produced by Parliament First, the group of which he is a member, although I have read press reports about it. I look forward to nothing more than spending part of the Whitsun recess back in Devon having a proper look at it.
	I do not entirely agree with all the points made by the hon. Gentleman. He was an ardent supporter of the modernisation package for which the House voted in October, and which was opposed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that in many ways it has improved Government scrutiny. Questions have become much more topical, and we have introduced much more pre-legislative scrutiny. Bills are now published in draft. We have also introduced cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall: questions were asked this afternoon on drugs. In many ways, it was a little unfair of him to suggest that there was less scrutiny of Government.
	The current Prime Minister has become the first to subject himself to questioning by the Liaison Committee, which consists of the male and female Chairmen of all the Select Committees.
	In the run-up to the conflict with Iraq, this Government became the first to allow a full debate and vote on such an issue on a Government motion. Many commentators have not allowed the significance of that precedent to sink in—a precedent that will make it extremely difficult for future Governments to commit British forces to armed conflict abroad without seeking similar parliamentary support. I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall therefore accepts that there have been some improvements in terms of what he seeks.
	I will have another look at the issue of the Speaker's list, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I understand that the Procedure Committee discussed it, but I shall re-examine it and consider whether there is a way forward.
	Several Members concentrated on public services. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) discussed the delays, as he sees it, in the building of the new hospital in Bicester, and I will ask the Department of Health to get back to him on that. As usual, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) painted a picture of absolute disaster in Southend, be it schools, hospitals or law and order. I doubt whether that reflects the reality—I am sure that his constituency is a much nicer place than that.
	The comments of the hon. Member for Southend, West were balanced by those of others. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North drew attention to a number of improvements in public services in her constituency. The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), having raised the issue of his local hospital so many times before, seemed to suggest that he has secured its future. I am extremely pleased that that is so, and I suspect that it is partly due to the extra money that the Government are putting into the health service.
	I have a difficulty with the attitude of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. He says that enormous challenges remain in the delivery of public services, but how could they be met if we were to adopt the Conservative policy of cutting spending on public services by 20 per cent.? The complaints of hon. Members on both sides of the House about the delivery of public services in their constituencies would become infinitely worse if we did so.
	The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) raised a local issue that I am aware of: the future of Seal Hayne college. I know that he has campaigned hard on behalf of his constituents, and specifically those in Newton Abbot, on its future. If he will give me the detailed questions that he had no time to ask today, I will ensure that he gets answers to them.
	Several Members talked about the problem of crime and antisocial behaviour. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) discussed in detail the very good work that is being done to tackle crime in Northern Ireland. He said something very wise when he pointed out that the fear of crime, particularly among older people, is often a bigger problem than crime itself.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) welcomed a number of Government measures that have had a positive impact in his constituency. He expressed the view of those on both sides of the House when he hoped that the Fireworks Bill, which returns to the House on 13 June, has a successful passage and gets on the statute book. I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst does not use the same wrecking tactics that destroyed a previous Bill on fireworks, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). Many people throughout the country will be extremely angry and disappointed if we do not get the Fireworks Bill on the statute book.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) suggested that we introduce a mandatory DNA register. That is an interesting idea, and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of Home Office Ministers and ensure that he gets a proper, substantive reply.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) asked some important questions about terrorist finance, and I shall ensure that the Treasury responds to them. He and other Members may be interested to know that while we were having this debate, the United Nations Security Council supported the new resolution by 14 votes to zero. That is a great achievement for British foreign policy, and I am sure that we will receive the support of all Members, given that the international community can now reunite around the redeveloping of Iraq in peace, security and freedom.
	That leads me on to the thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on the future of the United Nations. She made some important points about how we can create an international framework and international institutions that deal effectively with new threats in a changing world, and about the balance that needs to be struck between the traditional sanctity given to national sovereignty, and the real concerns that exist about the humanitarian disasters, torture and genocide that can occur within a country's borders. In the past decade or so, the United Nations has not been terribly effective in stopping such things, and I hope that we will give more attention to that important point in future debates in this House.
	The hon. Member for Gosport raised the issue of asylum, but his timing is strange when figures published today show a dramatic fall in asylum applications in this country.

Eric Forth: They are bogus.

Ben Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman says that they are bogus. He may have heard the Home Secretary on the "Today" programme this morning, challenging anyone who says that. He made it clear that, outside the House, he would call that person a liar. If they wanted to, they could sue him. The figures are not bogus, but good and reliable, and they should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is hypocritical of Conservative Members to moan on about asylum and then oppose measures because they affect their constituencies that would make the asylum system more effective. That seemed to be the attitude of the hon. Member for Gosport in opposing a secure centre in or near his constituency.
	Speeches were made about the general repercussions of devolution. The hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) spoke about Northern Ireland, where devolution is temporarily suspended. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) spoke about Wales, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas).
	Several hon. Members chose highly specific subjects. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) spoke about cystic fibrosis sufferers and their inability to secure drugs on prescription. I have personally written to the relevant Health Minister on that subject and would be happy to secure a substantive response from him. The hon. Member for Southend, West raised similar issues about rheumatoid arthritis. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) expressed the justifiable concern of his constituents about any expansion of Stansted airport. In doing so, he showed what an excellent constituency MP he is.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) revealed himself, not for the first time, as a great champion of London's Olympic bid, and I am sure that he will continue to fight to ensure that the bid is successful. The whole House will wish him well in that campaign.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Nottingham, North made thoughtful speeches about the importance of good parenting in tackling antisocial behaviour and other social problems for which bad parenting may be responsible. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North made some important points about how to engage young people in some of our most challenging communities.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) spoke about the case of Kenny Ritchie, which I heard about at length in a recent radio programme. It is indeed a worrying case and I will draw his comments to the attention of the Foreign Office, to see whether it can do any more to help his constituent on death row in the United States.
	As we prepare to head off for the Whitsun recess, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) painted a terrifying picture of the perils of flying. He should be congratulated on his campaign to make airline companies liable for the health of passengers. I suggest to him and the House that that is all the more reason for hon. Members and members of the public outside who may not have decided what to do with any free time over the next few days to spend it in the United Kingdom—holidaying here rather than spending their money abroad.
	Finally, that brings me to a regular theme in recess Adjournments—various invitations by hon. Members to experience the delights of their own constituencies. The hon. Member for North Cornwall drew our attention to the beauty of his county and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East surprised me—I have to say—by painting a very attractive picture of West Bromwich. The Times journalist, Mr. Andrew Pierce, whom he had a go at, must have been unkind about the area in a recent article. I hope that Mr. Pierce will take up my hon. Friend's offer to visit West Bromwich during the Whitsun recess and experience some of the delights that he described. I hope that he will not be insulted to discover that I intend to spend the recess in Exeter and Devon—the best part of Britain.

Phil Woolas: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Pharmacy Services

Julia Drown: I present a petition, collected in the South Swindon constituency, of more than 2,000 signatures, entitled "Save our pharmacy services". My constituents value the dedicated service that they get from their local pharmacies and want to see them protected.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Paul Farrelly: I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by 2,140 people, on behalf of Michael Morrell of Morrell's pharmacy in Knutton, Richard Else of Bradwell pharmacy, Anthony Milward of Milward's chemists in Milehouse, Judith Hagen of Cornwall's chemists in Silverdale and Mr. Patel of Hollowood chemists in Clayton, all of whom are community pharmacists in my constituency.
	The petition states:
	We declare that the removal of restrictions on pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions will have a detrimental effect on local chemists.
	The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government both to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continued services to local communities.
	The Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Fireworks

Paul Farrelly: I have pleasure in presenting petitions signed by more than 550 people on behalf of my constituents, Derek Blackford, Stephen Jones and Lillian Hadley.
	The petition states:
	We declare that the year-round sale of fireworks is detrimental to the well-being of those who find their use upsetting, such as the elderly, wildlife and pets. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons introduce legislation to restrict the sale of fireworks to the general public to the week before the 5th November.
	The Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,
	That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Woolas.]
	Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Six o'clock.